Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I do not agree with the Deputy's negative assessment of the OECD report. One of the great problems in discussing this issue is the failure to acknowledge those parts of the public service and delivery systems that are working well. At the same time, I candidly acknowledge some aspects are not working as well and that best practice is not being provided right across the system.

A good service is down to good management, staff and representatives and people working together in a collaborative way to ensure their organisation provides the public service the people need, one that is citizen centred and which tries to adapt at all times, with limited resources, but using technology and modern workplace practices, encouraging flexibility and empowering people at the front line involved in public service provision to assist in helping to fashion and design what needs to be done. That is an ongoing process that is not completed on any particular day. It is a process, culture and commitment to change and excellence which enables people to be able to fulfil their potential in their respective organisations, giving leadership at local level and trying to ensure that people work across as well as within organisations.

In the context of how we have delivered and promoted public service provision here, our system has emerged organically in a way that is not consistent in every respect as we deliver services. We need to recognise that. The OECD report and the task force on transforming public services provide an excellent context in which we can acknowledge the work is ongoing. The idea that there is absolute recalcitrance in the public service to change is not an accurate picture. One can point at many areas where the contrary is the case. However, it is clear that change is not delivered in a consistent way across the system. We know from experience that the management of change is also about people and about ensuring the leadership is there. We must give people the capacity and ability to proceed with change management programmes effectively and bring their organisations with them. There are good examples where that has happened. I already mentioned the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, an excellent example. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Social and Family Affairs have excellent welfare payment systems and have demonstrated an ability to take on technology transfer and to efficiently and effectively provide entitlements and services to people within 24 hours of the day of entitlement, for example, single farm payments. Their systems are as good as can be found anywhere in the European Union. The idea that this should be the exception rather than the rule is not the case. However, we must address all of the issues in a systematic way.

The Deputy asked what my view was of the public service. In our discussions with the public service unions, we have been able to give them, in addition to existing documentation, an indication of what we require in terms of restructuring, the use of modern procurement methods to save moneys, e-Government and redeployment. Redeployment is a critical factor, in particular the ability to redeploy people across the service to areas of critical need as the need arises. We have seen this in a different way in terms of how we responded to the emergency flood position over recent days. The response has been characterised by people's ability to collaborate, work together and work across the system and go to where they are needed. That is flexibility and people have been able to respond and get on with the work and overcome any issues of demarcation or other problems.

This is an intricate and complex industrial relations process. The idea that all this is simply handled and dealt with immediately with the consent of everyone available or on call is not correct. We need to recognise that and have a shared vision of the direction we want to take over the next few years. This will involve accelerated change and will involve people being prepared to reconfigure services from the way they are currently being delivered. This means changing how we do things. It means not doing the same things in the same organisations and institutions as previously. The process is about getting the most cost-effective and efficient way of delivering public services in whatever new structures that are required — some of which will involve mergers or abolition of authorities — and developing county structures and means of providing services. There are a number of ways and means by which this can be done, none exclusive of the other.

If we can find a way in which this can be agreed and to which people will commit and we get on with that and provide further savings, this will involve permanent structural change. It involves changing the way we do all of this. I believe the discussion process must ensure we do not just talk about what we need to do in 2010 in financial terms. The discussion is about how, given the limited resources available to the State — a changed situation from where we were — we will provide the basic services. It is about the priorities we are insisting upon, the aspects of services that will be eliminated and the aspects that will be dealt with by others. We must be prepared to look at all that. We must commit, as is the situation in Towards 2016 to which everyone is committed, to changing how we do things so that the citizen is at the centre of the issue and the service provider is in a position to provide the service as citizens require it as they go through life, in childhood, working, having families and old age. It must cater for how we handle people with disability and mainstream services for them. It is a more complex mosaic than people sometimes give to the debate.

I believe it is possible to achieve this in the right circumstances. The crisis situation we face today makes it an imperative for us to face the challenge comprehensively and in a collaborative way. We must do the business based on the excellent examples already available to us in the public service as to why change provides a much better prospect for better career fulfilment, a better workplace environment, a better way of delivering services and a far more fulfilling role for people than too many aspects of the services that are characterised by crisis management mode too often and perennially.

See this speech in context