Alan Kelly (Labour)

I welcome my fellow county man, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, and I welcome the chance to comment on the report on public service reform. We could talk for ever on this issue which has been raised many times in the House. For the record, the public service has contributed significantly to the development of our country and its economy. I am not one of those who, now the economy is on the slip, are interested in buzz words and the frenzied attack which claims we need public service reform left, right and centre. Of course we need reform but we need to consider it in a rational way.

I intend to raise five or six of the areas we need to address. As one who came to the Seanad having worked for almost nine years in the public service, I might have some insider knowledge from which the Minister of State could benefit. Changes in the public service have been too inward looking and not external enough. Reviews to date have tended to be about — here are the buzz words — internal processes, improving service delivery, organisational development, individual performance management, risk and governance procedures and trying to increase transparency, even if the latter is more about theory than practice because transparency is not increasing.

This is not enough, however. We need to consider the public service in a broader way. We need to consider managing goals better as well as improving project targets and how plans are implemented. We also need to consider how we can achieve better performance across agencies and Departments, which is a core issue I want to address as it is a fundamental problem. There are too many silos in the public service, which is one of the biggest issues relating to lack of efficiency.

We need a networked approach to working in the public service. When we consider this issue on a macro level, there are three areas in the public service: the Civil Service, the commercial semi-States and the non-commercial semi-States. These are three very different types of organisation, a point that needs to be understood because it is where much of the problem we face lies. We have allowed these three silos to develop independently and, to progress, we need to bring them closer together while keeping their positive components and ditching the rest. To use a phrase, we need to use the Kilmeaden cheese approach — take the best and get rid of the rest.

We need to improve governance and performance and we need a Civil Service working more closely with the public service. Dare I say it, there needs to be change on the Civil Service side in particular with regard to the manner and tone with which it deals with the public service. The relationship needs to be one of partnership but there is currently a sense of "us" and "them". I know this is the reality as I have been in that position and, although some will say it is not the case, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. The public service, semi-States in particular, should not be seen to be below the Civil Service or be afraid to report to it. That day and age is gone and the system needs to be more partnership led. We need a structure that allows for the Civil Service and Departments to have goals and outputs that are measured in such a way that they are in some way bound into supporting the semi-State organisations. The reporting should go both ways and not simply in one direction. Anything going in one direction tends to increase a silo and create circumstances that will not work to mutual benefit.

A classic example in this regard is the rural transport scheme. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs approached the Department of Health and Children to get the Health Service Executive to consider dealing with local area transport managers to bring people for medical appointments in clinics. When the two Departments came together, one saw a way of dumping some of its costs on the other, so nothing happened. That is just one example but we need a better way of dealing with cross-sectional agencies and projects because there is a lack of joined-up thinking across these.

Another example is that many agencies simply cannot work properly unless they get support across agencies and Departments. I worked for Fáilte Ireland for nine years. It is totally dependent on five or six Departments, not just the Department of Finance but also the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Transport and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. If it cannot get the buy-in from these Departments, it cannot execute its projects. In many cases, it simply does not get the buy-in.

We need to break down internally focused goals where the larger picture is not being seen. The Committee of Public Accounts investigates spending but we need to ensure the focus is not just on overspending and budgets but also on the reasons for the lack of joined-up thinking and missed opportunities. In many cases, these are not highlighted enough because people do not have the vision to see them. We need to develop networks so people work together on projects rather than within silos in their own Departments and agencies.

On recruitment, as a Labour Party representative I know we need increased flexibility in this area. I do not have an issue with this as long as workers' rights are protected. More to the point, we need to ensure career paths are drawn and people are not allowed to slip into a silo, which happens too often. There is a sense within certain Departments in the Civil Service, and it is probably a bigger issue in certain semi-States, that a staff member must serve his or her time. When I was made a permanent employee in Fáilte Ireland, I was the youngest male permanent employee. Eight years later, I was still the youngest male permanent employee. That simply is not good enough. Such situations are what drives good people out of the public service and into the private sector and one cannot blame people for that.

If the problems are to be dealt with, we must employ specialists. This is a significant issue, given the costs that arise because we do not have specialists employed in the public service and must hire consultants in many areas. We see from the disastrous decentralisation programme that in order to create fluidity between the public service and the Civil Service, we must examine the issue of transferability, particularly with regard to pension entitlements. Staff in a number of semi-State organisations have not applied to decentralise because they cannot transfer their pension entitlements. This issue has not yet been addressed.

While performance management is a very good initiative, in reality it is a failure because it has not been applied from the top down. I urge the Minister of State to ascertain whether performance management procedures, which have been put in place for workers, are also in place for the chief executives and senior managers of the various semi-State organisations. He will find that they are not.

E-Government has not been treated in the correct manner. Measures to date amount to tokenism. I know what I am talking about because I was e-Government person of the year in 2006. If one shows a little initiative, one will get support. However, in many cases we do not have people in the various organisations who have been promoted to a level which would ensure projects are completed. The e-Government process has been tokenism to a large degree.

The issue of leadership is critical in this debate. The best way to promote and change the public service and to achieve greater efficiencies is to show strong leadership. The Taoiseach had an opportunity on coming into office to show such leadership but unfortunately — although fortunately for the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh — he did not take it. He maintained the offices of 35 Ministers and Ministers of State. He could have shown leadership on the matter but refused to do so.