John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, to the House. I also welcome the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill and noted the Minister of State highlighted its importance. However, one wonders why it took eight years since the passing of the Public Service Management Act for the Government to introduce the Bill. I am not blaming the Minister of State personally, as he has only been in office for three years but it is particularly disappointing when in the last eight years several golden opportunities to initiate a process of significant reform of the public service were passed up by the Government. It would have been appropriate if the Bill was in place before those opportunities arose. There could have been real substantive improvement in the different processes of the public service.

The priorities for public service reform are clear to those who observe it in action. Strong performance appraisal systems must be introduced. Performance-related awards for public servants who act above and beyond the call of duty and who are excellent in their spheres are needed. Real targets must be set out and published within the public service. With that in mind, I compliment the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, for her proposal to publish a hospital cleanliness table to be drawn up by her Department. Such a scheme could be introduced usefully across several different aspects of the public service. The delegation of responsibility within the public service to local managers, which has not been done, must be ensured.

While the Minister of State referred to the PA Consulting Group report on the Strategic Management Initiative, he did not refer to all matters raised in it. For example, he did not refer to the 65% of respondents, a significant number of people, who believed that underperformance is still left unchallenged within the public service. The report also stated:

. . . senior managers with whom we spoke consistently expressed most frustration and disappointment around what they perceive to be the slow pace of change in the HRM agenda. Two of the most frequently articulated concerns were managing performance and recruitment. In relation to recruitment, areas of perceived inflexibility included securing sanction for posts and atypical recruitment, particularly in relation to specialist [potential] staff . . .

We observed little evidence of progress on devolving responsibility for HRM to line managers, and indeed little evidence on the part of line managers of an eagerness or capacity to absorb such a role. . . . manpower planning is virtually non-existent as a matter of routine practice.

The Minister of State did not refer to these damning paragraphs in his speech. It is hard to appeal and insist credibly on better value for money from public servants if the Government continues to show glaring examples of where Ministers do not seek it. I am not levelling this charge at the Minister of State but at other Ministers. Examples include the so-called "Bertie bowl" and the Punchestown Equestrian Centre project, in which every known procedure and routine was thrown out the window to ensure it was completed. There was also the case of the marina in County Kerry in which planning permission was not obtained and it had to be removed.

It is difficult for the Government to insist that value for money is a top priority but the Minister of State is in a better position than most of his colleagues to ensure it goes to the top of the agenda. The golden opportunity I referred to earlier is benchmarking. Much hot air has been evident in the Seanad and the Dáil, and in other venues, about this issue.