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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach to report on the publication by him on 4 October 2010 of the Second Report of the Organisational Review Programme [35866/10]

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach the role of his Department in implementing the Second Report of the Organisational Review programme; the recommendations that have been implemented to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41382/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding the Second Report of the Organisational Review Programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41386/10]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.

The organisational review programme, ORP, was established to review the capacities of Government organisations in three key areas, namely, strategy, managing delivery and evaluation. The aim is to ensure Government Departments and major offices are fit for purpose in terms of the challenges they face.

The first report of the organisational review programme was published at the end of 2008 and covered three Departments, namely, Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is now the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.

The second report of the organisational review programme was published on 4 October and copies were circulated to all Deputies and Senators. The report contains the findings of reviews of four Government organisations, namely, the Department of Health and Children, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Central Statistics Office and Property Registration Authority. It includes follow up action plans prepared by the management of each of these organisations. Detailed findings on each of the four organisations covering ten different organisational practices and behaviours were included in the report, along with a special commentary by the late Professor John Murray, head of the school of business, Trinity College. There also is a chapter on ICT best practice guidelines drawing from research of the seven organisations reviewed in the first and second phases of the programme.

While it would not be practical to go through each of the findings here, the second report highlights significant progress in several areas including, for example, a strong commitment to quality customer service being firmly embedded in many of the organisations reviewed, as well as a number of excellent examples of the effective use of ICT, involving innovative approaches and strong project management. The report also highlights areas in which there are significant capacity challenges that will require transformational change and development. For example, organisations still struggle to put in place effective performance measurement systems, especially to measure outcomes. Moreover, people management must be significantly improved, particularly in respect of the flexible allocation and redeployment of staff and the introduction of innovative work practices. In addition, Departments and offices must make more effective use of resources, both people and technology, to enhance productivity levels. As for follow-up to the findings, a clear responsibility lies in the first instance with the head and senior management of each organisation reviewed to ensure full implementation of its action plans.

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

The report, which was published in October, was particularly critical of the Department of Health and Children. It stated that the Department had not yet got to grips with managing the Health Service Executive, that allocation of staff was uneven and that staff morale within the Department was at a very low level. It went on to state "the quality of leadership [within] the Department is uneven" and concluded that staff allocation was highly unbalanced. What actions have been taken to improve the position within the Department of Health and Children arising from that report? In the context of the decision taken to proceed with a voluntary redundancy scheme in the HSE, can the Taoiseach indicate whether a similar scheme was considered for the Department of Health and Children itself? Has there been a marrying up of the issue of staff allocation and staff requirements in the HSE with that in the Department of Health and Children?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The danger is that we will get into detailed questions about individual Departments. The Deputy is familiar with the normal advice in respect of the line Minister.

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

However, this is a report of the organisational review programme, which is the responsibility of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach still has overall responsibility for the Government. This was a report that was conducted under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach on various Departments and, as I am entitled to do, I am asking the Taoiseach a question about it.

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

I always will be as helpful as I possibly can, however detailed the requirements.

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

The Taoiseach is being very open.

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

Thank you, Deputy. Arising out of the specific issue raised by the Deputy, the action plan contains an action that is to take place by the end of the year to deliver a more effective allocation of work assignments, which will in turn lead to an improved use of available staff resources. The target is to have the work of the project team completed by the end of this year. On the wider point, as the Deputy is aware, the Croke Park agreement provides the industrial relations framework to enable the Government, through redeployment, to consider a range of issues in which there are critical service pressures, to identify areas in which there is an underutilisation of staff and to make arrangements for redeployment in that regard as well.

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

One point made in the report regarding the Department of Health and Children was that at junior level, some staff are overwhelmed with work while at the same time, staff in other areas have little or nothing to do. Specifically, has that problem been resolved or when is such resolution likely? When are the reports due for the other Departments that are subject to the organisational review programme?

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

With regard to the Deputy's first matter, a project team is in place which will report by the end of the year on that specific point. I believe it is No. 8 in the overall action plan. That has been taken up as a matter of priority and urgency.

With regard to the third phase of the review, four Departments are being examined in that respect. They are the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Education and Skills, Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach. I understand that substantive progress has been made. I expect these reviews and the associated action plans to be completed in the new year.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The second report of the organisational review programme, also in reference to the Department of Health and Children, stated among its recommendations that the Department should:

Define its customer and stakeholder groups clearly and align resources, processes and procedures to serve each one in the most appropriate way and at the same time strike an optimal balance in the allocation of resources between competing priorities.

Has the Department implemented this recommendation? Would the Taoiseach agree that speaking of the Department of Health and Children's role of service to the citizens of this State in terms of customer and stakeholder groups is inappropriate and reflective of the thinking that is influencing all that is wrong at the Department, where we have become customers or stakeholders rather than citizens with equal entitlements to access services on the basis of need rather than ability to pay? Would the Taoiseach agree that the Department should consider all the people living in the State as meriting equally its concern and that services across the Department's responsibilities should be delivered in an equitable way, which currently is far from the case? Have the recommendations contained in the second report, which I have referred to, been pursued? Will the Taoiseach join me in urging a revisitation of the terminology used to describe the citizens of this State as customers, which we certainly are not?

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

In fairness, I do not think that was the intent. Customer service and customer delivery are part of the management of delivery. There are three aspects to these operational review programmes. These include the level of strategy in these Departments, how they are delivering and the situation for customers and people who use the service. Of course citizens use the service. No one is trying to say otherwise. This is the terminology used in the organisational review. It is not meant to devalue the importance of the service or the people who use it. The reviews then evaluate how Departments are measuring performance, the feedback from stakeholders and from people who use the service and what is the input into policy and strategy that derives from that.

As a management tool, a review is a good and objective exercise. For it to be rigorous, robust and thorough, one would expect that there would be recommendations and that weaknesses and strengths would be identified. It is like a SWOT exercise to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and to make sure an organisation responds to needs and to its strategy remit.

Where resources are limited issues will arise and critical service pressures will emerge. The programme is intended to get best practice across the system. Service pressures may emerge in some areas which are not replicated elsewhere because there are different ways of dealing with these things. In many respects it is down to management, personnel, the involvement of stakeholders and the team approach that can be adopted. It is only fair to say that we are engaged in a huge change management programme regarding the delivery of health services, moving from a regional structure that was with us since the mid-1970s to one that is now based on a programme involving a national hospitals office. This has been good and a means by which centres of excellence could be provided rather than looking at the need for resources regionally.

We have seen what has happened in regard to the cancer care programme, which is a very good example of the sort of change management programme required. These management programmes never meet with universal approval but outcomes for patients are far more likely to be better because of the changes than they would be under the status quo. Sometimes defending the status quo can get people involved in loyalties to institutions rather than seeing the bigger picture of what is in the best interest of patients. It is also about trying to localise as many services as possible and reconfiguring how we deliver them in a way that will, in many cases, increase service levels in many localities while developing centres of excellence in other areas. That is how the hospital system is being reformed. People have strong views on these matters. I have outlined the overall thrust of developments. Certainly, the status quo was not sustainable, nor was it providing the sorts of outcomes we would like to see. There was certainly no uniformity of outcome, as one can see from various statistics.

It is important that this exercise be about ensuring that, departmentally, the strategic plan of the health services is implemented by the bodies and agencies whose functions are on the operational side of the equation. Despite the constant portrayal to the contrary, the existence of problems does not mean progress is not being made. One can identify many areas in which objective progress is being made. I am glad to say the experience of the health service of the vast majority of people has been good. Members will note this themselves if they are prepared to admit it. People confirm my point and have been very happy with the way their relatives, or others, have been catered for or cared for. There are circumstances in which this may not be the case but, if one considers the overall level of activity, one will note that the thrust of the policy and the objective of the ongoing effort are to achieve uniformity across the service in every respect and on every occasion. Against the background of limited resources, that is a continuing challenge. The Croke Park agreement is a once-off opportunity to transform circumstances in a way that could provide us with a sustainable and practical future for stakeholders and citizens who use the service. That is my honest opinion.

Clarifying the roles of the Department vis-À-vis the agencies continues to comprise an area in respect of which further work is needed. We are in the process of implementing a change management programme and when we come out the far side - it will not happen overnight but over a period - the basic thrust of and philosophy behind the changes will prove to have been correct and will best guarantee accessibility. We have changes in respect of long-term care and care for the elderly, in respect of which there is now much more equity and a far better statutory basis for the equitable provision of such care than would have been the case in the past when various care systems grew almost organically and regionally depending on what resources were available and what practices were in place in various regional organisations.

There have been many improvements but, as I would expect, particularly in a Department such as the Department of Health and Children in respect of the delivery of health services, there are areas for further improvement.

There are significant areas where matters must improve further and in respect of which we must ensure that the strategy is implemented in the best possible way. The redeployment provisions in the Croke Park agreement are fundamental to ensuring that we can allocate resources into communities, where appropriate, and that there is efficient use of the hospital system.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are marked differences between the Taoiseach and me regarding how to describe the Department of Health and Children and the situation relating to our network of public hospital sites. The second report of the organisational review programme was published in the first week of October. Is there a timeframe regarding the implementation of the recommendations in the report, particularly those relating to the Department of Health and Children?

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

A number of the recommendations in the report relate to the Department of Health and Children. The action plans are set out and are part of the process. The specific issue regarding a better allocation of work and assignments within the Department of Health and Children is a matter of priority and the recommendation in this regard has been taken very seriously. I expect that the project team will have completed the work designed to improve the situation by the end of the year. In the context of encouraging greater clarity between the agencies, we also expect the relevant work to be completed by the end of the year. I am not stating that all of this work will be done by the end of the year but I am satisfied that several priority areas have been identified. I am confident that what I have outlined will be done.

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

I understand the Department of Finance did not opt into an operational review programme at all and instead carried out its own capacity review in 2009. The latter found that the Department is widely acknowledged to be a professional and effective organisation with dedicated and highly skilled staff. Is there a reason the Department of Finance did not opt in? Is it of such superior status that it did not need to be involved in an organisational review? Is there a reason for its stance or was it a case of "Hands off, leave us alone"?

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

As the Deputy is aware, an independent panel has been established to carry out a review. It is usually the case that reviews ongoing in Departments involve existing personnel from other Departments coming in. There is quite a fair level of engagement with the staff in respect of how organisational programmes are worked through.

The Minister for Finance established an independent panel to review his Department. His decision was announced on 10 September. The panel is chaired by Mr. Rob Wright who has 35 years of economic, policy and management experience in the public service of Canada, more than 20 of which was at the level of what we could call Secretary General. Most recently, Mr. Wright served as Deputy Minister of Finance in Canada. The second member of the panel is Mr. Hans Borstlap, who has considerable experience in the Dutch public administration system, including holding the position of director general at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and membership of the advisory board of the Dutch National Bank. He also gained significant experience at EU level as Chairman of the Employment and Labour Market Committee. He is currently a member of the Council of State and provides advice to the Government on the annual budget in this role. The third member is Mr. John Malone, a former Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food. Mr. Pat McArdle, an economist, provides support and assistance to the panel. The panel is assisted in its work by a secretariat provided by the Department.

The independent panel has been asked to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the systems, structures and processes relating to those elements of budgetary, economic, financial and public service management that are relevant to its role. I expect it to report quite soon.