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

Question 3: 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. [30633/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have been two reports from the public service benchmarking body. The increases recommended in the first report of the body were implemented in my Department in the following manner: the first 25% of the recommended increase was paid in June 2003 with effect from 1 December 2001. The total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000. A further 50% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 January 2004 at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year. The final 25% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The annual cost of full implementation is approximately €900,000.

The second report of the public service benchmarking body recommended an increase of 1.1% for the grade of principal officer. No other increase was recommended in respect of general Civil Service grades. No payment has been made to date by my Department in respect of this recommendation, the estimated annual cost of which to my Department would be €26,000.

Pay increases recommended by the public service benchmarking body are conditional on delivery of real and verifiable outputs regarding modernisation and flexibility.

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

In the talks that will begin tomorrow with the social partners and trade union leaders does the Government intend to put on the table a plan for a more efficient public service? As everyone understands the system has strangled initiative in many ways and as the Taoiseach will meet union leaders tomorrow, does the Government have a plan to introduce or bring about a more effective and efficient public service? Is the question of a reverse benchmarking process being discussed by the Government and with the trade unions? A reverse benchmarking process could apply in achieving marked efficiencies. Is this issue being discussed by the Government and with the trade unions?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Talks are ongoing; they are not beginning tomorrow. As the Deputy is aware, they are on the basis of the trade unions' indication that they believe policy options are available to the Government for the purposes of achieving necessary savings next year in the public service pay bill. Obviously, the Government has been in discussions with the trade unions on various data and policy issues that arise and these discussions will continue tomorrow. In the context of the ongoing discussions and against the background of the agenda to transform public services being the means by which the Government can look to progress in transforming public services and providing a template for public service reform, the Government has indicated, at the unions' request and through documentation, its vision for the public service in the medium and longer term.

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

I will illustrate my next question with an anecdote. I was contacted recently by an employer who had applied to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for optical benefit for one of his employees. The employer was obliged to fill in an A4 page containing a series of questions that took approximately eight minutes to answer. It then was necessary to post the A4 page to the Department where it was sent to the relevant section. It took a number of days before it reached the relevant person who reprocessed the questions on the A4 page and input the data into the system in order that the application for optical benefit would be considered. My point is that all of this information was contained on the P35 form submitted previously by the employer. Six years ago I noted that were the benchmarking awards to be paid at the then cost of €1 billion, the Government should have seen to it that efficiencies were achieved as a consequence. This story is typical of hundreds of thousands of cases in a system that is inefficient, costs money, incurs delays and not in the best interests of either the employee or the customer. With hindsight, does the Taoiseach believe it was a good idea to pay the benchmarking money without securing benchmarks for efficiency in a public service that is so critical to so many aspects of Irish life? Was it a good idea to pay it without requiring any efficiencies for extra benefit for the customer?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Pay increases recommended under that process were conditional on real and verifiable outputs with regard to modernisation and flexibility. There were conditions attached to the payment. In some cases where there was a delay in agreed modernisation or flexibility was not forthcoming, the payments were also delayed until such time as that was delivered. It is not right to say there was no conditionality attached to the process. What is clear, however, is that there is a need and an opportunity to accelerate change in how we deliver our public services for the benefit of citizens who require them, based on both the financial realities we must now contend with and in the interests of enabling and empowering those who are involved in the work of providing public services being able to do so as cost effectively and efficiently as possible, incorporating best practice in every respect and consistent with the principles of public accountability. That is an ongoing process that will have to be accelerated. Taking on the challenge of that change is not easy or simple but it must be pursued, and it is better to proceed with it on the basis of agreement that everybody has the shared objective of providing public services in this country by giving the best possible value to the taxpayer.

The Deputy mentioned an anecdote related to him recently. The question of being able to share information and providing the necessary technology for transferring information across the system in a consistent way, which is also consistent with data protection issues, is on the agenda. Some progress has been made, although it is greater in some Departments than in others. Good examples in that respect are the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There has been a transformation in those Departments and offices in recent years in terms of the ability to provide very substantive payments on an ongoing basis, on time and directly to the people entitled to the payments. The need to provide that best practice model across the system and to share the information in a way that would lessen the amount of time required for information to be collated and dealt with by individual Departments or service providers is something we must examine.

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

I was referring to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. My apologies for my mistake. Is the Taoiseach confident that in the discussions he is recommencing tomorrow with the trades union leaders he can arrive at a position where further industrial action will be averted? Does he, on behalf of the Government, have a plan that can convince the trades unions and the social partnership that it is possible to bring about a leaner, more efficient public service? Is he happy he will be able to convince them that what he proposes is actually workable and will achieve a more efficient and reliable public service in the interests of all the people?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a challenging agenda for all sides, both management and staff. I believe the discussions have been entered into in good faith. There is an understanding and recognition of the Government's position in terms of the financial realities with which we must deal. Obviously, there is limited time available to see whether the basis of an agreement is possible. The Government has decisions to take, by 9 December next at the latest. The discussions we are having are at the suggestion of the trades unions and are examining policy options that would provide the savings while at the same time providing us with a means to proceed with a process of reform that will meet the existing commitments that all parties entered into agreement about in the Towards 2016 document.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it the Government's intention to reach agreement with the public service trade unions on issues relating to pay, reorganisation and reform in the public service prior to the budget? I heard on the lunchtime radio news that the public service unions had committed themselves to a second day of industrial action on 3 December. Is it the Government's intention to try to conclude an agreement with the unions prior to that date? If, as the Taoiseach acknowledges, the public service is in need of the reorganisation and reform that require major decisions to be made, what has the Government been doing for the last 12 years that these reforms have not been achieved before now? Will the Taoiseach confirm whether the report of the review body on higher remuneration has been received by the Government? Has it been considered by the Government and what decision has been made on it? What is recommended in the report in respect of remuneration?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the third point, that issue has not yet been considered by the Government. It is being examined in the Department of Finance and has not yet been brought before the Government.

On the first issue raised by the Deputy, the objective of the Government is to proceed, if possible, on the basis of an agreement that meets the economic and financial objectives we have set. In respect of what has been happening in the last 12 years, many initiatives have been taken on the modernisation of various parts of the public service. Some have met with far more success than others. Those where there has been success are a very good indicator of what is possible when there is good, motivated management with good staff representation that can recognise where the organisation needs to go, that the most important people are the citizens whom we serve and that the service should be responsive and flexible enough to meet the needs of citizens, which can vary from time to time throughout a citizen's life depending on what public service is involved. The need for flexibility, to move beyond organisational boundaries and achieve a joint working approach in a team effort, regardless of where people are employed, to maximise the service, given that we have limited resources, is absolutely critical. Where this has happened, many such services have moved from crisis management mode to a totally different situation, where there is far more satisfaction, both for the organisation in terms of how it is perceived by the public and for those who work in it.

Change should be seen as a positive prospect. To see it as something negative to be postponed or not proceeded with in a joint effort is an approach that does not meet the requirements of our current situation or at any time. Change is a constant for many organisations. It is certainly the situation in the private sector and must be so for the public sector. For those of us interested in seeing the public sector continue to play its role, it is about a public sector which is responsive, flexible and understands the need for the changes that must take place. These changes are outlined in the transforming public services programme. It is a very good context and background against which much good work can be done if people put their minds to it. The context for this to happen will be based on the discussions we are having.

I have always made the point that it is better to proceed by agreement. However, at the same time, the Government has its responsibilities to discharge and it will do so. The question of what dates are set for strikes will not dictate the Government's position. The objective merits of the situation require that we proceed and to do so on an agreed basis is preferable once we meet the objectives we are talking about. Everyone recognises that the financial situation of the country is such that those objectives have to be met.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach said that a number of agencies and offices in the public sector have achieved reforms, reorganisation and efficiencies. Will that be factored into future measures that might be taken generally in the public service?

I refer to the benchmarking exercise. He will recall that the greatest dissatisfaction about the benchmarking process related to the secrecy that surrounded it. The idea was that posts in the public service would be benchmarked against similar posts outside the public service, yet nobody could ever say what exactly was benchmarked against what, what external comparators were used, what levels of salary, remuneration and so on applied and what was the basis for the benchmarking. If there is a reverse benchmarking exercise, as suggested by Deputy Kenny, can the Taoiseach assure the House that the next time round the full information will be made public in order that the comparisons made will be fully known? People would then be able to outline that a particular post was measured against a particular range of posts elsewhere, the salaries and remuneration packages that apply to these posts and why these comparisons are being made. The last time round all that was made publicly available was the outcome, which was increases in pay, but the rationale and the comparisons done were never made known to anybody.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was the criticism that attended the first benchmarking process where we were initiating a process and seeking to provide confidence in the system, but the second benchmarking process was more transparent regarding its terms of reference and information on comparators. The report confirms that; it was a learning exercise in that respect. The purpose was always that the public service would not lead wage trends in the private sector but, instead, follow them. The ongoing discussions with the unions in respect of this is on the basis of the new economic and financial realities we are facing. I have acknowledged the fact that during the year the Government had to take decisions involving a pension levy of approximately 6.9% from the overall pay of public servants towards public service pensions provision in the future. That has been acknowledged but in 2010 a particular will arise, which must be dealt with. We are in bona fide discussions with staff representatives on that issue.

The Deputy mentioned the strike. I am disappointed there is any strike. While one is in discussions with people, it is far better to conduct the discussions and it will not be any different in respect of what the issues are tomorrow no more than it was yesterday or today or any other day. It is necessary to focus on the specifics of the issue in front of us to see if it is possible to find a basis of any agreement that addresses both the short-term issue and also provides a means by which an accelerated change programme would be the feature of the coming years in order that we can implement the transforming public services agenda, which provides a good and detailed context in which such discussions could take place.