Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the cost which has accrued to his Department in respect of the payment of the benchmarking pay awards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28211/06]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the cost of benchmarking to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34119/06]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.

The benchmarking phases were implemented in my Department with 25% of the increase from 1 December 2001 paid in June 2003. The total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000. A further 50% of the increase was paid from 1 January 2004 at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year and the final 25% of the increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The full year cost of the increases, in total, is estimated at €800,000 for 2006.

Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, the pay increases recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body were conditional on delivery of real and verifiable outputs in relation to modernisation and flexibility. The key mechanisms for monitoring overall progress in this regard were the reports on action plans prepared by individual Departments and offices, a general review by the Department of Finance and verification by the Civil Service performance verification group. The group concluded that the progress achieved warranted payment to the grades concerned in my Department.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the past five years the Government has recruited almost 40,000 extra staff and paid around €1.3 billion through the benchmarking process. This includes the Department of the Taoiseach where, I understand, legal staff has doubled and communications staff has increased by 55%. The Taoiseach's Department will spend €143 million more this year than when he came to office and most of that is related to salaries.

The Taoiseach refers to real and verifiable outputs and suggests the basis for determining these lay in the action plans produced by each Department and assessed by the Civil Service performance verification group. Regarding benchmarking payments in the Taoiseach's Department, what were the three priority outputs that were to be achieved under the benchmarking programme? What are the three essential differences people can see in the Department relating to increased efficiency and better public service?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Everyone had to put forward a plan and the plan I submitted relating to my Department covered four broad areas on which management and staff collaborated. Those areas were human resource management, financial management, quality customer service and technological innovation. More competitive promotion processes were introduced while the performance management and development system, PMDS, relating to the management of performance in the civil service was implemented. There was a central timeframe. The process related to training and to implementing the guidelines set down by the Department of Finance regarding performance management and lowering staff levels in the Department by 2% through individuals taking on new roles and functions and integrating sections.

The Department introduced a new financial management system, the Oracle programme, designed to give more information and control. It deals with costs and inputs and allows for more transparency such as allocating cost heads to individuals. People in the Department are now able to identify where money is going, not only to sections but to individuals. This programme has been fully implemented in the Department and allows for much better monthly reporting than previously. It fits in with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and so on. The method of reporting achieved is far better as it is meaningful for individual sections in that they can see areas for which they are responsible. It has improved efficiency and service.

A customer charter was developed, as was the case in other Departments. Annual customer surveys are now conducted to measure the Department's performance against commitments made in the charter. Those who use the Department are given a questionnaire seeking opinions on service and everything from time calls to memorandums.

The e-Cabinet project is an innovative system, electronically supported, and enabling the administrative process associated with the preparation for and conduct of Government business. The Department has won awards for this system. It was mainly implemented by civil servants with some outside expertise.

These are some of the advances made in the Department which were put forward to the verification group and are now fully implemented.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the systems of performance measurement in operation in the Taoiseach's Department change in advance of the next round of benchmarking? Is the Taoiseach planning any initiatives to award top performers in his Department? Are his special advisers covered by benchmarking in the same way as other staff in the Department? There is a particular issue regarding contract workers and benchmarking. There is often short notice — one could almost say no notice — given on the expiry or renewal of contracts. Given that many of the people involved are parents and have other responsibilities, is it possible to determine whether benchmarking can cover contract workers in the Department of the Taoiseach? Can better notice be given regarding the expiry of contracts?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will examine that. Currently, contract workers are not really in the system. Like advisers, they operate on a different contract basis. If one was a contract worker for a number of years, one would fall considerably behind his or her benchmarked colleagues.

The Department's management group is examining the initiatives it would like to have included in the Civil Service performance verification group's deliberations in the next round. This would include extending it into e-Cabinet and Cabinet sub-committees. The Cabinet element and movement within Departments have been well bedded down. However, they are examining other extensions that are three years away. Issues ranging from the knowledge society to dealing with EU business have been raised in the customer surveys. There are other areas where Departments see potential for further modernisation. There are also regular circulars on modernisation issued by the Department of Finance to other Departments.

No decision has yet been made on the operation of bonus payments for civil servants, but it is an issue. In the last round of benchmarking, those who prepared the report stated that the issue of bonuses should be examined and the Government should take a view on it. It is a difficult issue to deal with and it was not dealt with in the last round. I am in favour of it in principle, but we need to examine how it can work best. If senior officials within one Department were to receive bonus payments, what does it say about senior officials in another Department? Perhaps the former were dealing with hotter political issues or more difficult legislation. Those are some of the problems that arise. On the other hand, it is somewhat unfair if an able individual is out-performing his or her colleagues, yet only gets paid the same as everybody else. The practice in industry is fairer in that if one is a top performer, one will be in line for bonuses. It is not an unreasonable position. Because the whole theory of benchmarking is based on the comparison between industry and the public service, the issue of bonuses is one that needs to be addressed. While I do not have the answer as to how this can be done, it requires further examination.