John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I am very grateful for all of the contributions made. I have a couple of specific points to make in conclusion. It is interesting that we have had this debate today in conjunction with that on the Croke Park agreement. Perhaps the Seanad could have decided the preferred order. Having listened to some of the contributions, we know that if we do not change the way we do things, we know what the outcomes will be. If we continue to deliver programmes in exactly the same way and have inputs without change, we will have the same outputs. This programme provides the basis on which change can occur. Everyone agrees that we must have change and this is the research that facilitates some of it. In that respect, the debates today are timely because there is a common theme.

Senator Alex White said that in my opening contribution I was not specific enough on the second report. That is a fair point, but the statements are on the programme, as well as the second report. That is important because the second report is only one specific element. Four organisations are reviewed in the report, but the programme will review every Department between now and 2012. Yes, it comes up with reviews, action plans and proposals, but it is preferable in this respect that there is a wider debate. This is not just a snapshot but a programme and a process over an extended period, covering all Departments, as part of which they will be reviewed individually and there will be specific action plans, the implementation of which will be measured. That is important. I am glad, therefore, that the debate is about a little more than just the second report.

Senator Phelan spoke about the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, an organisation for which I have a lot of appreciation, especially since my time as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, when I got to understand its workings. The Senator spoke about the risk attached to foreign investments and things that had happened in the past. I have noticed that the Revenue Commissioners have improved their practices in risk profiling and random audits and that the challenge is not to do more of the same but to keep pace with what is happening. The Senator makes an interesting point about the challenges posed to the organisation, given the fact that key staff have moved on. It is not peculiar to the Revenue Commissioners but is occurring right across the private and public sectors, when people acquire certain skills which are lost to an organisation when they move. As a result of the review, the Revenue Commissioners are putting in place a programme aimed at greater internal mobility, offering greater skills to a greater number of staff in order that the level of dependence on one key person will not be as great. The Department of Health and Children which is also the focus of the second report is bringing forward a similar mobility plan for its staff.

Many comments were made about the Department of Health and Children. Particular concern was expressed about governance procedures and so on. The Department has an action plan and undertakes to strengthen governance of directly funded agencies. I indicated there were about 30 agencies involved, between the HSE and other agencies. This will include the early development of a memorandum of understanding between the Department and the HSE to give greater clarity to their respective roles. I understand this is to be agreed by the end of the year. The action plan is time-bound and there specific outcomes have been targeted. It was not just a review to identify the issues, the identification of issues was to be followed by an action plan. It is a pity Senator White is not here to hear me say this. The action plan for the Department is time-bound and the next phase is to monitor its implementation.

The core objective of the programme is to assess the capacity of organisations and, based on these assessments, to bring about improvements, where necessary, and champion best practice. The team conducting the reviews has been struck by the commitment of staff at all levels to the process. In every Department and Office reviewed to date the willingness of management and staff to participate in interviews and workshops has been exemplary. This has been the case with all stakeholders and customers. There were over 340 engagements in the second round reviews. In addition, the response rates to the staff surveys are well ahead of what one might expect in such surveys. For example, the response rates to the second round surveys ranged from 67% to 74% across the four organisations reviewed. That is a clear indication of the willingness of staff to participate in identifying improvements and best practice and engage in the process. The figures demonstrate clearly that the staff and customers of Departments and major Offices are eager to see improvements and appreciate their views being sought. The key lesson is that change and innovation should be regarded as inclusive processes. The deeper the consultation, the more sustainable the change process will be.

My second main point is about sharing information on best practice. Across all of the organisations reviewed to date the ORP team has found examples. In my statement I referred to the chapter in the second report on ICT best practice guidelines. The Property Registration Authority and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners were found to be leaders in the development and application of ICT-based solutions. A core reason for this is that management at all levels in these organisations understands the capacity of ICT as a powerful business tool. That mindset opens up opportunities, be it in management information systems, on-line customer service delivery or automated back-end processing. The ORP team also surfaced high quality customer services. For example, there is good consultation in the Central Statistics Office when major changes to statistical outputs are being planned. The names and contact details of staff are printed on all statistical releases and staff are available to speak to users after press conferences.

A third key point relates to human resource management. The ORP reviews show there is considerable scope for improvement in the management of people in Departments and Offices. In particular, the flexible allocation and redeployment of staff and the better management of performance are seen as especially challenging. Change in these areas will require focused actions at organisational and public service wide-levels.

I would like to refer briefly to the measurement of performance. This can be especially challenging in some public sector organisations, especially policy-making Departments. Nonetheless, it is important that senior management leads an invigorated effort to improve the measurement of performance. This should be done with reference to outcomes, as well as international benchmarks of best practice.

There was a very valuable debate earlier today on the Croke Park agreement, in which the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, heard Senators' views. The agreement presents many challenges to the public service and will require concerted and effective responses. By enhancing the capacity of Departments and Offices, we can ensure greater levels of productivity and the more efficient use of resources. For these reasons, the organisational review programme has an important enabling role to play in facilitating transformational change in the public service. I do not believe one goes into a Department or an agency and introduce change. It has to be founded on research. The research findings identified in the ORP report form the basis for change by developing best practice and through the greater use of ICT.

I again thank Senators for their valuable contributions to both debates.