PAI JournalIssue 80

public Affairs ireland journal The essential guide to legislative, regulatory & public affairs issues in Ireland

www.publicaffairsireland.com

October 2011 Issue No. 80

Embedding change in the public sector Maureen Lynott, recently appointed as Chairperson of the Top Level Appointments Committee, discusses some perspectives on reform of the public sector and the delivery of public services with Sarah Kilduff The recently appointed Chairperson of the Top Level Appointments Committee (TLAC), Maureen Lynott has considerable experience of the Irish public service, particularly in the Health Sector and is well positioned to comment on the changes and reforms impacting on the public sector.

Sound measurement The public sector in Ireland is undergoing a period of substantial transformation, with additional changes and reforms expected to

take effect early in 2012. When asked about her opinion on the pace of delivery of public sector reforms, Lynott says “public sector reform is never easy, it is always difficult and when it is done on a large scale it is even more difficult”. She also acknowledges that the challenges underpinning public sector reforms at a time of scarce resources are even more demanding. “The Government has to do more with less, but has to continue to improve and deliver quality and accessible public services to the citizen.”

Continued on page 2

Ministers outline new approaches to procurement Public Affairs Ireland hosted its sixth conference on public procurement on September 24 2011. It was extremely well attended and many delegates expressed the view that the conference was a fruitful gathering in a neutral setting allowing for useful engagement with policymakers and fellow practitioners on a firsthand basis. A brief synopsis of the speakers’ presentations is below.

Minister for Environment, Community & Local Government Phil Hogan TD, highlighted the importance the Government awards to public procurement policy and said that by making public procurement more cost efficient “we can also achieve a number of other objectives”.

While complexities exist around procurement, “we have the capacity to meet our public procurement

PAI INTERVIEW

Maureen Lynott..........................................................1 EDUCATION

Michael Moriarty reviews the recent changes arising from the rationalisation of VECs ...............................5 NGO SECTOR

Sarah Velthius discusses how NGOs can continue to operate effectively in the current economic climate........................................................................7 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

John Travers reviews the increased prominence of science and scientific research in recent years and the benefits to the economy and society.....................8 PARLIAMENTARY & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Liam Herrick examines changes to the legislation regarding the prison system .....................................11 Jarlath Heneghan & Cassandra Byrne discuss recent developments regarding corporate manslaughter.............................................................13 Jonathan Greer outlines the role of the Oireachtas Library & Research in assisting members in legislative analysis.....................................................14 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Sarah Kilduff and Aisling O’Sullivan report on the recent PAI conference on public procurement..........16 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Tom Ferris examines Regulatory Impact Analysis in Ireland .........................................20 Don Bergin reviews the recent C&AG report and reflects on the issues raised relating to the Performance Management and Development System.......................................................................22

Continued on page 16 Public Affairs Ireland

1

Interview

The new TLAC Chair believes that reform encompasses many factors including changes to work practices, increased flexibility, up-skilling, the use of e-government and shared procurement. These are all practices, Lynott affirms, that “never happened historically in the public service” and require “major advances” in how people do their work.

GovernmentStat Maureen Lynott is a strong advocate for sound measurement structures to assess how services are performing and if they are achieving their stated objectives.

One measurement framework for best practice which Lynott advocates is ‘GovernmentStat’ which would serve as an effective tool for addressing management responsibility and accountability. GovernmentStat is a “tool, discipline and management practice that can bring about enormous progress in the public service.” Many international government agencies use this tool to assess performance against clear objectives and priorities through benchmarking peers against one another and against international practice.

This system “provides a basis for learning, you now need to know how your agency is doing vis a vis another.” Maureen Lynott believes that effective measurement is so essential that without it, there is no way of underpinning reform. Lynott goes as far as to say the absence of such “a hard measurement structure is one of the biggest weaknesses of the Croke Park agreement”.

The new TLAC Chair believes that there is little sense in individual agencies developing new measurement structures unless these are developed across the public sector, “to be part of a structure and discipline, a common architecture.”

One comparison Ms Lynott draws on is between the Department of Education and the Department of Social Protection.

Measures for social protection are more “amenable to measurement” i.e. in terms of how many people are on the live register etc. Education is much more difficult to measure as schools

2

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

tend to be “highly devolved”.

While the attendance rate, results etc. can be utilised, there needs to be other “more subtle, qualitative measures”.

She gives an example of New York City, where they look at things like school environment and the priorities contained within this such as after school programmes. Other features of the school system are accounted for and it is not solely confined to whether a student completed school with the relevant educational qualifications.

The HSE: The future Lynott served as a senior adviser to the CEO of the HSE between 2005 and 2010. During this tenure, she supported him in leading what she describes as one of the largest programme changes ever undertaken by the State, namely the Transformation Programme for the Irish Health Service. During this time, she also worked to devise the HealthStat system, which was based upon the CitiStat system initiated in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Through HealthStat, the CEO of the HSE met with hospital CEOs, Clinical Directors

“This Government has embarked upon a reform agenda and not an agenda of reducing staff so they need a process that will enable that reform”

Maureen Lynott and Local Health Officers to discuss the HealthStat results with them.

Lynott asserts that it is an “effective tool”, whereby “senior management staff have the opportunity to hear the issues and challenges people have and it encourages management to be accountable and responsible”.

One of the most encouraging things to emerge from the system, Lynott notes, was the level of engagement with the heads of hospitals. Subsequently, local and regional managers began to implement the system with their own teams and it proved to be “very useful.” “This process of engagement is vital” she adds. “Reform needs to reach the people who deliver services on the ground and the levels of service supervision and delivery.” This Government “has embarked upon a reform agenda and not an agenda of reducing staff so they need a process that will enable that reform.”

Maureen Lynott believes that despite criticisms of the health system in Ireland, the reforms achieved as part of the Transformation Programme in the HSE will still deliver better outcomes for patients.

The previous transformation programme encompassed a number of elements or “pillars” which “continue to pertain and will pertain into the future”. The first of these pillars was the reconfiguration of services. This model dictated that services such as

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

ambulatory care, out patient centres and primary care were better organised without any overlap in service delivery.

Another pillar Lynott mentions is clinical leadership whereby clinicians agree upon certain protocols. The need for “a team-like fashion” is vital in order to provide a better quality of service and integrated care. These pillars, she agrees are “as pertinent today as they were back then”. “I believe progress is being made and people don’t give credit to that…none of this is easy and there are huge challenges ahead.” But she called for greater recognition of progress in key areas and an acceptance that there are areas where we have done well in reform and service delivery; “I would like to see more visibility about what this country does well.”

Special Delivery Unit: Changing structure of NTPF Maureen Lynott previously served as Executive Director of the National Treatment Purchase Fund, which she says worked well in the reduction of waiting lists. While there was huge opposition to it at the time, the NTPF did achieve its objective; “It served as a uniform patient treatment register which documented the number of people waiting and the time they are waiting”. This, she asserts, was a “transparent development”.

As a result of the NTPF, it became obvious that five or six hospitals were not improving raising serious “issues of management, organisation and clinical leadership”. Lynott notes that “certain things can be fixed through measurement; while certain things you have to do more significant work – those hospitals that didn’t sufficiently improve were the ones with the significant problems.”

The NTPF did not have to exist forever, “I don’t think the Government thought it would either”. Many changes, Lynott affirms, did occur in that time however “hospitals deserve credit with that and the NTPF worked well”. Whatever happens now with the creation of the Special Delivery Unit, there will be no wastage. “In Northern Ireland, money was thrown at hospitals and while

Public Affairs Ireland

Interview

“Professionals were sure the introduction of mandatory reporting would have negative repercussions which it didn’t”

waiting lists went down dramatically, they subsequently rose and continued to rise”. In fact, “anything that is done in reform, whether it be changes to the structure of the health system or otherwise, it all has to come down to embedding change and improvement” and “the only way you know that is working is if you have measurement at a number of points along the way”. She concludes that “nothing in change is easy but you often get the best change when you have less money”.

Mandatory reporting Having served on the working group which produced ‘Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children’, published in 1999, and with the ongoing debate surrounding the introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse, as proposed by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald TD, Lynott agrees that the reporting of child abuse is a key responsibility of society. It is “absolutely, in my view, a duty of any professional adult who works with children in a guardian type capacity, such as a teacher in a school, to follow the process and report cases of abuse.”

Once again, drawing on New York as an example she explains that in the mid1980s there were huge problems with appropriate reporting. “Professionals were sure the introduction of mandatory reporting would have “negative repercussions - which it didn’t”. This attitude, she maintains stemmed from

the very culture whereby people did not realise they had a duty to report such things. However, what has to change is “peoples understanding of what their role is, both morally and professionally”.

However, this change won’t come fast but with the introduction of mandatory reporting, she believes that it is a step in the right direction.

Maureen Lynott is convinced that reform in the public sector is inevitable and will be delivered under the right supervision, management and organisation, with strong measurement along the way. She is determined to play her role in achieving this objective.

Biography Maureen Lynott is a senior level director and professional executive with extensive experience in governance and management of enterprises in the public and private sectors with particular expertise in organisation change management and performance systems.

She has held a number of consultancy roles with the HSE, the National Treatment Purchase Fund, Department of Health and Children, Dublin City Council and the World Bank amongst others. She has served on a number of Boards including the Board of St James’ Hospital, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., An Cosan and the Special Residential Services Board. She was recently as Chairperson of the Top Level Appointments Committee.

3

Interview

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Public Affairs Ireland Conferences

Morale and motivation A period of unprecedented challenges and change for the Irish public sector How will the pending outflow of staff impact on VFM, service delivery and accountability of individual public servants?

• HALF DAY CONFERENCE • NOVEMBER 18 • WESTIN HOTEL Keynote speaker John McGuinness TD, Chairman of Public Accounts Committee

• What practical implications will the public sector reforms have for individual public servants?

• What impact will the substantial outflow of experienced staff in February 2012 have on the public service?

• How will these changes impact on service delivery?

• What impact will these changes have on the public accountability and VFM imperative that exists for the public sector?

• How can reforms be embraced and changes in staff facilitated without impacting on service delivery?

The Irish public service is undergoing a period of unprecedented challenge and change. Following on from the moratorium on recruitment and promotion in the public service and the cuts in pay and introduction of a pension contribution, the public sector in 2012 will face the biggest outflow of experienced staff in its history. In the meantime, there is increased pressure for the delivery of public services in an environment where public expenditure is even more constrained. There is a focus on doing more with less and strong pressures to resist increases in taxation.

In the face of such challenge and change what will the implications be for the public service in Ireland? How will public sector organisations continue to meet expectations on service delivery and accountability concurrently with high levels of change resulting from the departure of experienced staff? And what will be the implications of the changes in staff in public sector bodies for the management and staff remaining?

While all these changes are taking place, how will the channels and structures charged with

• What mechanisms exist to resolve difficulties concerning the selection of people for early retirement?

• How will organisational change be accommodated following the departure of experienced staff?

For more information click here

securing accountability from the expenditure of public funds adapt? Will it be business as usual or will account be taken of the potentially seismic changes in prospect in the public sector?

These are some of the issues that will be considered at a special Public Affairs Ireland half day Conference being convened in Dublin on Wednesday October 19 2011.

This conference will be practical, targeted and focused – not pitched at an abstract level – it will address the matters from the perspective of individual public servants, both those considering retirement in the New Year and those who will be remaining as staff and management within organisations. It will look at how management and staff might anticipate and prepare for a public sector that will be significantly changed by this time next year.

These and other related issues will be addressed during this important conference which should be attended by all public servants interested in the impending changes in their organisations, particularly those with an interest in the HR, Finance and Corporate Services areas.

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

EDUC A T I O N

Challenging times for VECs Michael Moriarty outlines the challenging times facing VECs as the vocational sector undergoes major changes Aggregation of Vocational Education Committees (VECs) Last June, Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairi Quinn TD announced the reconfiguration of the current 33 VECs into 16 new entities. In July, the Minister informed the Dáil that his officials were preparing legislation to give effect to the reconfiguration and that the legislation would also involve a consolidation and updating of the existing legislation on vocational education.

IVEA (Irish Vocational Educational Assoication), as the representative body for VECs, believed the amalgamations would not be in the best interests of the communities that VECs serve and campaigned unsuccessfully to have the proposals changed – believing that the last thing non-metropolitan Ireland needs at this point is more large remote institutions.

The Government has made its decision and VECs will be amalgamated over the next few years. While this will pose serious challenges for VECs, there are other ongoing developments that will present VECs with a real opportunity to contribute hugely to preparing our workforce for the inevitable upturn in the economy.

The establishment of SOLAS Also in July, the government announced the establishment of a Further Education and Training Authority (SOLAS) as a first move towards putting in place a distinct, coherent and integrated Further Education and Training (FET) sector to deliver the ‘workplace-relevant’ skills essential to drive future prosperity. In the words of Minister Quinn, the authority’s mandate will be to ensure the provision of 21st century high-quality further education and training programmes to jobseekers and other learners.

While much of the media focus has been on the replacement of FÁS with SOLAS, this commentary fails to recognise that behind the headlines lie proposals to profoundly restructure FET

Public Affairs Ireland

in Ireland. Indeed, the establishment of SOLAS heralds a long overdue realignment and integration of FET, a development that will move our FET system closer to the European model of provision and improve learner opportunities and outcomes appreciably.

FÁS, as the national training authority, has been delivering a wide range of apprenticeship and other training courses while VECs have separately been delivering an equally wide range of other further education and training programmes. However, until recently, there was little interaction between VECs and FÁS, as each sector operated in separate statutory environments.

Under SOLAS, the two previously separate services will be integrated into a distinct, coherent and, to a significant extent, a single one-stop-shop FET service, providing progression paths

“Challenges lie ahead for all concerned – SOLAS, VECs, trainers, tutors and unions”

for learners from level one to level six on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). The restructured VECs will be the main mechanism for delivering targeted education and training services locally to adult learners and jobseekers.

While all of this is a welcome development, challenges lie ahead for all concerned inlcuding SOLAS, VECs, trainers, tutors and unions. They will be challenged to set aside old work practices if the objective of a flexible, modern, responsive FET sector, which delivers coherent, accessible and quality assured further education and training programmes, is to be realised.

For VECs, this challenge must be faced alongside the enormous challenges involved in rationalising the current 33 VECs into 16 new entities.

The moratorium on public service appointments In March 2009, a moratorium on the appointment to posts of responsibility in schools was introduced with immediate effect. This blunt instrument has caused serious difficulties for schools where there has been a high level of retirements. If we must have cutbacks, then it is surely necessary to apply them with some degree of equity.

The non-replacement of postholders has placed enormous pressure on principals and deputy principals.

Indeed, there is good reason to believe that many with the capacity to lead schools effectively are passing up on the opportunity for obvious reasons.

Ultimately, of course, it is the students, and the most vulnerable students, who suffer most as many posts of responsibility are about supporting students with special needs of one kind or another. And all of this is occurring at a time when the ESRI has told us that many students are slipping between the cracks in their first few years of second level because they lack the necessary supports. If we want to do something about early school leaving, then we must support

5

EDUCa T I O N

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

our most vulnerable students better. It costs some €70,000 to keep a person in prison. How much does it cost to support a potential early school leaver so s/he remains in school and makes the most of his/her life?

All indications are that the impact of the moratorium is going to be further exacerbated when a raft of senior teachers, all post holders, retire early in the New Year. This will put the management of our schools and the care of our youth at serious risk.

The moratorium has also affected other VEC services. VECs have lost one third of their Education Officers, a loss sorely felt at a time when education and training is being reformed on a number of fronts. They have also lost 10 Adult Education Officer (AEO) posts. AEOs are absolutely critical to the ongoing development and management of VEC adult and community education and training programmes that respond to the needs of those seeking to upskill and rebuild their lives having been depraved by the economic downturn.

On top of all this, the moratorium has resulted in a significant haemorrhaging of

“All indications are that the impact of the moratorium is going to be further exacerbated when a raft of senior teachers, all post holders, retire early in the New Year”

administrative staff in VECs, a situation likely to get worse early next year.

The financial constraints facing the State are fully appreciated by the VECs. But they feel that the way the moratorium is being implemented needs to be urgently reviewed if we are to avoid seriously undermining public services that are critical to ensuring long term prosperity and social cohesion.

VECs look to the future VECs today face serious challenges on a daily basis. On the other hand, they are also well placed to contribute, in a major way, towards redesigning the future of further education and training right across Ireland. To a significant degree, the Minister’s July announcement regarding the integration of further education and training under a single national authority sketches out the structural development necessary to achieve this goal.

VECs, born at the height of the Great Depression, have a proud history of catering flexibly to the education and training needs of people in their local communities – irrespective of their aptitudes, backgrounds, aspirations or amenability. There is every reason to conclude that they will rise to today’s challenges and deliver an integrated, coherent and quality assured FET service.

Michael Moriarty is the General Secretary of the Irish Vocational Education Association (IVEA).

PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Upcoming Courses at PAI Certificate in Freedom of Information ICM Accredited for a CPD Award Commences Tuesday October 18 1.5 day course Cerificate in Public Procurement ICM Accredited for a CPD Award Commences October 25 8 days over 7 weeks Certificate in Project Management for Public Sector Administration HETAC Level 6 Special Purpose Award Commences Tuesday November 8 Certificate in Public Law ICM Accredited for a CPD Award Commences Tuesday 15 November 2 course days over 2 weeks To register your interest for any of the courses please email training@publicaffairsireland.com, call 01 8198500 or book online at www.publicaffairsireland.com

6

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

N G O SEC T O R

From outputs to outcomes Sandra Velthuis outlines why a shift in focus from outputs to outcomes will ensure that funds are spent more wisely within the not-for-profit sector When asked about the non-governmental organisation they represent, people tend to find it relatively easy to talk about what it does on a day-to-day basis. A social care charity for example might say its volunteers deliver meals to older people, an arts organisation might say that it runs outreach programmes in schools or an environmental group might say that it organises river clean-ups. Such an emphasis on activities is the norm and prevails in other sectors of society too.

A dispassionate observer might question the relevance of such activities however. Their answers in no way indicate what real difference these activities are making, either immediately or in the long-run. It could be questioned whether their result is positive, neutral, or potentially even negative.

In the past, the very fact that activities were charitable/voluntary was deemed sufficient to believe (or at least hope) that the organisation must somehow be doing the right thing. Whilst some organisations have been happy to rest on that laurel, many more have become increasingly self-reflective. Over the past decade or two, the majority of organisations have tried, in different ways and with different levels of success, to meet everwidening legal and regulatory demands and to incorporate burgeoning good practice guidelines, in order to improve organisational efficiencies and enhance service quality.

Maximising community and voluntary sector impact Giving explicit consideration to the actual difference that organisations are making through their operations is a more recent phenomenon. There is a growing recognition that they need to move beyond a focus on activities (‘outputs’) to a focus on change (‘outcomes’). Such change can be for individuals, families, communities, wider society, or even the planet as a whole. For example, the outcome for the meal delivery service for older people might include improved health, reduced isolation and the ability to live independently for longer. It is vital that organisations acquire the knowledge of what truly changes for their clients as Public Affairs Ireland

a result of their interventions, and how this change comes about. By doing so they will be in a position to address their clients’ needs to the best of their ability.

Knowing it is not enough, however showing it is vital also. Today, community and voluntary organisations are under greater public scrutiny. The constrained financial climate in particular, has meant that their value to society is being questioned more and more by the general public, by funders and investors (current and potential), and by those in charge of public services.

Evaluation and accountability Accountability is therefore essential. This requires the provision of solid evidence.

Most organisations already collect data on their outputs (number of clients, training courses, publications, etc.) but outcome measurement is arguably more challenging. The measurement of impact (the wider and more long-term consequences of interventions) is even more complex. There are, however, many methodologies and metrics available to suit the planning, monitoring and evaluation requirements of the diverse range of organisations that constitute Ireland’s community and voluntary sector. These range from Outcomes Stars to the Local Impact Measurement Tool and from Outcome Mapping to Social Return On Investment, with much in between.

Yet, the question remains: how willing are not-for-profits, and just as crucially, their funders, to embrace the outcome method? Although I am aware of some excellent examples, this is certainly not true across the board.

For instance, some organisations are determined to continue projects that have been shown to have only very limited success. Cutting services that do not add significant value is something that organisations find extremely difficult, even if doing so would free up resources which could in turn be allocated to more effective services. There is also reluctance amongst some to accept that a variety of programmes/organisations might be having an impact on a particular client or cause. There has to be a sharing

of success, as well as of lessons learnt, as this will ultimately result in better outcomes.

There are funder issues too. When applying for funding, organisations feel under pressure to over-claim what their proposed programmes can achieve with the limited grant-aid available, especially within short, uncertain funding terms.

‘Logic models’ that illustrate a sequence of cause-and-effect relationships have their place, but there are funders, both statutory and philanthropic, who are promoting the use of downright confusing versions that in no way help the creation or measurement of impact.

And up until now, most funders have been content to accept limited-value (but often costly) evaluation reports, which have only been attended to after programmes have ended.

Overseas trends suggest that funders will increasingly demand outcome and impact measurement from recipient organisations. It is vital that they provide these organisations with the resources to do this adequately. They must also make it a condition of funding that organisations put in place proper planning, monitoring and evaluation frameworks at the start of programmes, and they must ensure organisations are adequately supported to do this if they do not have the capacity in-house. Finally, everyone must let go of the relative security offered by the previous approach. If evidence shows that different or more costly interventions in the short-term have a deeper and longer-lasting impact in the longer-term, we must be ready to face this fact.

Moving from outputs to outcomes will ensure that both public and private funds are spent more wisely and will lead to a more effective community and voluntary sector that is truly responsive to identified social need.

Sandra Velthuis of Whitebarn Consulting (www.whitebarn.info) is co-running a Public Affairs Ireland training seminar on 18 October 2011 with Sheila Cahill of Sheila Cahill Consulting (www.sheilacahill.ie), entitled “An introduction to assessing outcomes and impacts for community groups/NGOs”.

7

RESE A RC H A ND INN O V A T I O N

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Science - spearheading Ireland’s economic recovery John Travers details how scientific research can enhance competitive advantage and contribute towards job creation and economic advancement

Almost two centuries ago, celebrated French statesman, writer and poet, Victor Hugo wrote that “Emergencies have always been necessary to progress. It was darkness which produced the lamp. It was fog that produced the compass. It was hunger that drove us to exploration.

And it took a depression to teach us the real value of a job.”

One of the most striking sociopolitical developments to have emerged in Ireland since the global economy changed three years ago has been the increasing prominence of science and scientific research in our national discourse. No longer confined to the laboratories and corridors of our higher education institutions, research and innovation have, in our ‘hour of need’ become better articulated, more easily understood, and their value to our mainstream economy and job creation more acutely defined and appreciated.

Everyone from policy makers to enterprise, to the general public now seeks strategies and solutions to engineer competitive advantage. Our scientific community has risen to the challenge and is registering a significant impact. Ireland is positioned in the global top-20 for its quality of research, excelling in key disciplines such as nanotechnology, materials science and genetics and genomics, among other areas. We continue to improve in the world innovation rankings, rising from 19th in 2010 to 13th in the 2011 Global Innovation Index.

Most recently, Science Foundation Ireland’s Annual Report for 2010 revealed a dramatic 44 percent increase in research collaborations between SFI-funded researchers and industry and a 12 percent growth in international partnerships with higher education institutions. At the publication of these findings, Minister of State

8

with Responsibility for Research and Innovation, Seán Sherlock TD, said that “top-class science in Ireland is helping to engineer economic rejuvenation”.

Even in times of plenty, many people question the importance of science to our economy and to our day-to-day lives. One man’s essential quest for scientific innovation is another man’s extravagant expenditure, while a ‘cautious’ approach to investment in the eyes of one man could be interpreted as ‘stagnation’ by another.

“The reality is that science is, and always has been, intrinsically linked to everything we do”

Science: From innovation to competitiveness Examining the role and relevance of science today is an important debate.

Historically, there was a marked disconnect between research and job creation, between laboratories and commercialization, too great and for too long. This disconnect has been rectified, and, through a concerted, collaborative approach over recent years, science has assumed its position as a driver of economic activity and employment maintenance and creation, an impetus for foreign direct investment, a foundation pillar for Irish enterprise, and an important instrument of reputational recovery internationally.

The reality is that science is, and always has been, intrinsically linked to everything we do. How we function as individuals in a society, and how Government operates is dependent on innovation, on increased efficiencies, on devising and developing new, methodical processes and systems that are better than those previously employed. That is how society and science evolve in tandem. Our ongoing scientific activities ultimately help to deliver innovation, which, in turn, contributes directly to our competitiveness.

The formation of SFI Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology (CSETs) and Strategic Research Clusters (SRCs) have been instrumental in reconfiguring how research is conducted in this country, intertwining disparate scientific stakeholders to the benefit of both enterprise and research.

This comparatively new dynamic for science is, in fact, its natural habitat, an environment in which commercialisation is best realised. For researchers and business, collaboration and convergence have become the rule

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

RESE A RC H A ND INN O V A T I O N

From left to right: John Nolan (Waterford Institute of Technology); Director General, Science Foundation Ireland, John Travers; Seán O’Riain (NUI Maynooth); EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; Jennifer Claire McElwain (University College Dublin); Carola Schulzke (Trinity College Dublin); and Eoin Casey (University College Dublin).

rather than the exception.

SFI-funded researchers are today connected to over 530 distinct companies that employ over 82,000 people at present in Ireland.

This significantly underpins the Government’s broader enterprise agenda, with SFI working closely in assisting IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and other state agencies.

It is reassuring to see collaborations

by SFI funded researchers increasing with both multinationals and the SME sector, and displaying a wide spread of partnership engagements of depth and substance. Also particularly satisfying is the extension of SFI’s influence cross-seas, with 1,700 international collaborations involving higher education institutions spanning 58 countries. These are trends that exemplify a nation growing in confidence and stature on the global stage through scientific endeavour.

This is timely progress, too, with preparations continuing apace for Dublin’s hosting of European Science Open Forum (ESOF)/City of Science in 2012.

Reputations take considerable time to earn, yet can be damaged or diminished

Public Affairs Ireland

in a nanosecond. That is why the sustained approach to investment in scientific and engineering research needs to be maintained. SFI’s focus remains resolutely on establishing and maintaining its recently-acquired status as an emergent scientific force for economic development. The challenging fiscal reality of Ireland today has only served to make researchers even more determined in their work, more intent on establishing connections with industry and more eager to relay the message of science to a wider audience, domestically and internationally.

The activities conducted by researchers in our higher education institutions are geared towards measureable and relevant outcomes of benefit to us all, be it in energy, ICT or life sciences.

Programme for Government Science in Ireland has a fleet of dedicated and dexterous ambassadors - from researchers and institutions to agencies, initiatives and individuals including SFI, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Health Research Board, Teagasc, Higher EducationAuthority, the

Government’s Chief Science Advisor, Discover Science and Engineering, Dublin City of Science 2012, Science Gallery, and our outgoing President of Ireland, Mary McAleese amongst others. Thanks to the commitment of these organisations and individuals, the voice of science has become a chorus, in tune with today’s society and the collective drive for economic resurgence. This multi-sectoral support is underpinned by a cross-departmental approach by successive Governments.

The new Programme for Government and initiatives introduced since March of this year clearly illustrate a commitment to innovation as a policy priority. The Government’s agenda to facilitate greater commercialisation of research is welcome, as is its pledge to remove barriers to innovation and to accelerate exploitation of new technologies.

Through SFI, a structured and stringent system of adjudication and support has elevated research projects and research outputs to new levels.

Only excellence in research which holds real potential for commercialisation is the touchstone for recognition and support from SFI. This will continue to

9

RESE A RC H A ND INN O V A T I O N be the bedrock of our approach.

Internationally mobile business seeking good locations for its investments isolate a set of key decision criteria when making their choice.

Among these, unsurprisingly, a welleducated young workforce, favourable tax incentives and a modern transport and telecommunications infrastructure.

Increasingly, a primary consideration for prospective investors is the degree to which a country prioritises its R&D investment, how it accommodates innovation for today, and how it provides for discovery potential tomorrow.

That is why multinational companies across many sectors who have set up in Ireland over the past decade have cited the presence of SFI and a robust research capability as critical factors in their decision. It is also why one of the most heartening factors of note in the midst of current economic turmoil is that the impressive growth in exports and overseas market-share by Irish–owned enterprise is being led by research performing firms.

Recently I met, here in Dublin, EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and Irish-based researchers who had just secured prestigious EU funding under the European Research Council (ERC) ‘Starting Grant’. This scheme comprises an investment of €670 million over the next five years to fund cuttingedge research activity by 480 talented researchers across Europe working in life sciences, social sciences and humanities and in physical sciences and engineering.

Welcoming their achievements, Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn said “European Research Council grants are highly coveted in the research community, especially amongst younger researchers who often struggle to find funding. The diversity and quality of these winners based in Ireland is very encouraging, and their research will contribute to our drive to make Europe more innovative and therefore more competitive.”

Scientific research and economic development Serious scientific research supported

by SFI is a pivotal part of a wider process of economic development and the commercialisation of research findings, not a consequence-free pastime that is to be indulged. In

10

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

the lexicon of modern-day business, politics and similar arenas, eagerness to realise long-term objectives in the short to medium-term is regularly tempered by cautionary counsel that “it’s a marathon, not a sprint”.

I would contend that in the context of scientific research, both marathon performers are required as essential and complementary parts of Ireland’s scientific team. Expectations by the general public and by Government of publicly-funded scientists are high, as they should be. Science has delivered much but it has the potential to deliver much more to Irish social and economic development. It should be required and provided with the opportunity to do so.

“Serious scientific research supported by SFI is a pivotal part of a wider process of economic development and the commercialisation of research findings”

Equally, however, it is too much to expect that science by itself will be the only determinant of our economic fortunes. The reality is that competitive advantage, which is only be secured through innovation, has science at its core, whether in the field of energy, life sciences or ICT. But science, while critical, is but one component of the development process. That is why the troika of science, business and Government now need to be harnessed to work together to pull the Irish economy into sustained recovery.

I have walked the road of discovery with SFI since its very beginnings.

I have seen it take its first steps, support our most brilliant minds, pose questions along the way, answer questions asked of it, blossom here and abroad, and facilitate productive partnerships among a vast network of talented innovators across the globe.

I have witnessed its elevation to a position where it can now assert that it acts as a proud flag bearer for Ireland.

Albert Einstein had a word to describe

the act of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - insanity. Thankfully, that is not something of which, as a nation we, have been guilty in our approach to science. Notwithstanding prevailing economic difficulties domestically and internationally, Ireland’s scientific credentials are stronger than ever before. This is attributable to the fact that we have continually modified and adapted to rapidly-changing circumstances. Research activity and research funding have both become more targeted, more refined and more responsive. And these efforts are bearing fruit.

Job creation Jobs are being created today in areas ranging from virtualisation and cloud computing to optical sensors and medical devices. Major trade missions have been led by the Irish Government to the U.S. and Australia within the last month alone. The US mission included a visit to Research Triangle Park (RTP), one of the world’s top biotech innovation hubs.

Here, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Richard Bruton TD engaged with representatives from top local universities adept at turning world-class research into economic opportunities. The Australia mission had a technology focus, and secured over €5m in new deals, which enhanced business relationships in areas such as IT, telecommunications, e-learning, financial services and e-health. Similar international science-focused activities, involving SFI, have taken place in recent years across the world.

We hear it regularly claimed that Ireland is punching above its weight in many fields - literature, the arts, sport and humanitarian endeavours.

We stand out and are both noticed and admired. Science is fast becoming a contender for that list. The challenge, once we’ve claimed that position, is to keep the pace. Their overall track record to date strongly suggests that Ireland’s cohort of scientific researchers are not only well-trained, but match-fit and performing competitively under pressure. Essential qualities, in both good times and bad.

John Travers is the Director General of the Science Foundation of Ireland.

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Pa r l i am e n ta r y & L e g i s l at i v e A f f a i r s

Reforming Ireland’s prison system Liam Herrick claims that increasing the size of and numbers in our prisons will not reduce crime rates

Imprisonment should only be reserved for the most serious offences and for those offenders who present an ongoing risk to society. This is one of the core messages of the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT), and to that end, we have welcomed recent legislation which seeks to end the futile practice of imprisoning people for failure to pay court-ordered fines, by way of the Fines Act 2010 and, more recently, legislation aimed at decreasing the use of imprisonment for more minor offences by requiring judges to consider community service orders instead of custodial sentences.

Prison service: Issues However neither of these measures addresses the more urgent issues of chronic overcrowding, slopping out, drugs and increasing inter-prisoner violence which combine to make prisons unsafe for prisoners and prison staff alike. In February 2009, the Inspector of Prisons was so concerned about overcrowding in Mountjoy prison that he raised it as a potential matter of life and death in a letter to then Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern. In his report for that year, the Inspector further pointed out that overcrowding in Cork Prison was proportionately worse, and he found conditions in Limerick Women’s Prison to be “inhuman”, with women prisoners regularly sleeping on floors.

The Inspector concluded that many of the progressive initiatives taken by the Irish Prison Service in recent years were being frustrated by the chaotic overcrowding situation.

Little has improved since 2009. The most recent annual report for the Irish Prison Service (published August 2011) reveals an increase of 10 percent in the daily prison population on 2009 figures and a 15 percent rise in sentenced committals.

There is a steady increase over the past 6 years from 5,088 sentenced committals in 2005 to 12,487 in 2010 – and the number of prisoners entering prison continues to rise in 2011.

Public Affairs Ireland

Solutions One thing is certain: building more cells will not solve the problem. The past 15 years have seen over 1,900 additional prison spaces built, but despite this huge expansion, overcrowding has worsened with little or no effect on rates of crime. Yet, in the face of this irrefutable reality, the previous Government put forward as a solution to overcrowding the building of a ‘superprison’ which would accommodate 2,200 on an over-priced site in north County Dublin.

From the outset, IPRT has been opposed to the proposed panacea of Thornton Hall as a white elephant, one that not only demands major capital expenditure in a time of strained resources, but that further commits the Irish taxpayer to ongoing expenditure into the long term by way of the increase in prisoner capacity. IPRT

“The past 15 years have seen over 1,900 additional prison spaces built, but despite this huge expansion, overcrowding has worsened with little or no effect on rates of crime”

believes that any new prison building to address poor prison conditions must be matched by a commitment to closing unsuitable prison accommodation. We have consistently raised our objections to the Thornton Hall project on the basis of size, location, security-levels, and plans to co-locate facilities for young offenders, women offenders, those detained under immigration law, and the Central Mental Hospital (as originally proposed.)

Thornton Hall Review Group In May 2011, upon publication of another damning report by the Inspector of Prisons, the newly appointed Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan Shatter TD, announced the establishment of a project review group to examine the need for new prison accommodation and to advise whether work on Thornton Hall, on which more than €40m of taxpayers’ money had already been spent, should proceed.

The final report of the Review Group on the Proposed Prison Project at Thornton Hall in July 2011, IPRT welcomed the Group’s unequivocal message that overcrowding “will not be solved solely by building more prisons”. The Group’s statement that the deplorable physical conditions and overcrowding levels in Cork and Mountjoy “expose the State to significant reputational, legal and financial risk” was also highly significant. Following years of scathing reports from the Council of Europe European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), as well as reviews by the Inspector of prisons and most recently the UN Committee against Torture’s concluding observations on

11

Pa r l i am e n ta r y & L e g i s l at i v e A f f a i r s

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Irish prison conditions, IPRT wholly agreed with the Review Group that “doing nothing” is not an option.

Concerns The Group’s emphasis on alternatives to custody, possible home detention and an incentivised early release scheme (including community service) is progressive. As part of a package of measures to reduce the prison population while ensuring public safety, IPRT has previously recommended incentivised early release as a way to reduce prison numbers in a safe and structured manner.

However, in recommending that a smaller development go ahead on the Thornton Hall site, which would accommodate up to 500 prisoners, along with a further 200 spaces in step-down facilities, with no commitment to close Mountjoy Prison in the short or medium term, the report recommendations still represent further prison expansion.

Another issue of serious concern is the significant expansion already underway across the system, described in the report, to which IPRT is steadfastly opposed: current prison building projects will see the Midlands Prison increase its capacity to 916, while Wheatfield Prison now accommodates 700 prisoners.

We only have to look at the disastrous experience of the United States and Britain to see that increasing the size and numbers of our prisons only serves to increase the numbers of prisoners; it has no effect on lowering rates of

12

“In Ireland, we know that our prison population is made up in significant part by young people who slip through the cracks of our care system our education system and our mental health services”

crime, and it does not make society safer. The stark economic reality is that we cannot afford to build more prisons. What we need instead is an alternative view of how to tackle crime at its sources.

Coherent crime policy In Ireland, we know that our prison population is made up in significant part by young people who slip through the cracks of our care system, our education system and our mental health services and who come largely from a small number of extremely poor urban communities where economic policies have failed. An economic analysis of crime would lead us to investing in those communities and

services as the most prudent way to avoid the long-term costs of an inflated prison system.

What we need is a coherent crime policy, as recommended by the Review Group, which joins the dots between the need for prevention and early intervention strategies, principled sentencing policies, alternatives to custody (including gender-specific models for women) and meaningful reintegration supports. We also need better community policing, better services for young people, and better supports in dealing with alcohol and drug problems.

Increasing the size of and numbers in our prisons cannot, and will not, reduce levels of crime. It will merely serve to increase prisoner numbers. We will always have prisons, but in a society that seeks to prevent social problems and build stronger communities, prison should only be used as a last resort, and resources should instead be directed towards early intervention and diversion, alternatives to custody, and ensuring the humane treatment of prisoners where imprisonment is deemed necessary.

Liam Herrick has been the Executive Director of the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) since November 2007. IPRT is Ireland’s leading non-governmental organisation campaigning for the rights of everyone in prison and the progressive reform of penal policy, with prison as a last resort. See: www.iprt.ie

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Pa r l i am e n ta r y & L e g i s l at i v e A f f a i r s

Recent developments in corporate manslaughter: Your liability as a manager With a number of prosecutions against employers who have breached health and safety legislation resulting in employees deaths. Jarlath Heneghan and Cassandra Byrne review the proposed legislation on corporate manslaughter Recent Prosecutions In 2011 there have been two high profile corporate manslaughter prosecutions in the UK (R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Limited and R v Lion Steel Equipment Limited) under the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007 (“CMHA”).

These cases featured workplace accidents resulting in employee fatalities. While these cases have arisen in the private sector, the issues which have arisen are equally applicable in the public sector.

In the first conviction under the CMHA in February 2011, Cotswold Geotechnical, involved an unsupervised employee who was fatally injured when a trial pit collapsed. Cotswold Geotechnical was also found to be in breach of UK health and safety regulations governing excavations.

Cotswold Geotechnical was fined Stg £385,000 for corporate manslaughter, although no custodial sentence was imposed upon the directors.

Although they were a small employer with only eight employees and one director, this did not negate their obligation to have safe systems of work in place.

In the second prosecution under the CMHA, Lion Steel Equipment Limited, not only was the company charged under the CMHA but three of the company’s directors have further been charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The company was also charged under UK health and safety regulations for failing to ensure the safety of its employees.

Lion Steel Equipment has been charged in relation to the death of an employee who fell through a fragile plastic roof panel on one of the firm’s sites. The company has been supplying businesses with storage equipment, including shelving, cupboards and cabinets, for more than 50 years. By contrast to the Cotswold case, Lion Steel Equipment is a much larger company, employing more than 100 employees. The expectation here would be that they should have had good corporate governance and health and safety practices and procedures in place which would equally be adhered to in a firm of this size.

The Lion Steel Equipment case is only at preliminary hearing stage but

Public Affairs Ireland

will be watched closely by managers, directors, and industry analysts to see how it develops when it goes to full hearing (anticipated to be in December 2011).

It is expected that it will examine issues such as who is a manager, what is their responsibility and the extent to which their actions contributed to employee fatality, what were the acceptable practices within the company and if they were followed.

Sentencing for breach of corporate manslaughter will also be examined closely as the sentence for corporate manslaughter is an unlimited fine.

According to UK Sentencing Guidelines issued in February 2010, the appropriate fine will rarely be less than £500,000 and may indeed be quantified in millions of pounds.

Duty of Care: Managers’ Responsibilities Corporate manslaughter offences are based around employers or managers having a duty of care to the victim. The UK legislation cites examples of duties of care, including those owed to customers (for goods and services) to employees, as occupier of premises or when constructing buildings or infrastructure. There must also be a breach of a duty of care because of the way the organisation’s activities were managed as a whole by employers or managers.

At present there is no Irish equivalent of the CMHA and companies are generally prosecuted for such similar offences under the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”).

However the 2005 Act generally only applies to work-related fatalities and does not extend to the sale of dangerous products or services resulting in fatalities.

In theory, companies could also be charged under the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence, for similar offences. However, in practice, prosecutions have generally focused on the 2005 Act approach.

Irish Corporate Manslaughter Bill The Irish Law Reform Commission highlighted the need for corporate manslaughter legislation and draft legislation was prepared in 2007. The

draft Bill provided for the criminal offence for corporate bodies of “corporate manslaughter”. Directors or senior managers could be charged with the offence of “grossly negligent management causing death”. The courts would have powers to impose unlimited fines on companies convicted of corporate manslaughter and/or imprisonment for managers guilty of those offences for up to 12 years. The ambit of the Bill would apply to both public and private sector companies and organisations, including Government Departments and Statutory Bodies.

In December 2010, the Minister for Justice announced approval for a draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill. It remains to be seen if it will be put on the Government’s agenda for this autumn. Undoubtedly, the CMHA and cases such as Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings and Lion Steel Equipment will be potentially relevant and, perhaps, influence the interpretation of any Irish legislation.

Any proposed legislation on corporate manslaughter will have implications for employers and managers whereby, in addition to civil liability, they could face criminal prosecution for breach of duty of care resulting in employee fatalities.

Conclusion Companies, their directors and managers will need to review and tighten up or put in place robust corporate governance and health & safety policies and systems. Such obligations will apply regardless of the size of the organisation, nature of the services or the number of employees involved.

This will then need to be regularly audited to monitor compliance. Good procedures are essential if companies, including their directors and managers, are to best protect themselves, employees and endusers.

Cassandra Byrne, Senior Associate (FCIArb, Accredited Mediator) and Jarleth Heneghan, Partner (FSCSI, FRICS, FCIArb, MCIOB, Solicitor qualified in both Ireland and England & Wales) both of William Fry Projects & Construction Department.

13

Pa r l i am e n ta r y & L e g i s l at i v e A f f a i r s

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

The role of the Oireachtas Library & Research in assisting Members in legislative analysis Given the increased pressures on public resources, the evaluation of policy and legislation has never been so important in Ireland. Jonathan Greer discusses how the work of the Oireachtas Library & Research Service builds on Regulatory Impact Analysis and assists Members in their ex-ante analysis of proposed Government legislation.

Growing emphasis on evaluation Since the 1990s, greater emphasis in Ireland has been placed on the evaluation of government policies and programmes.

While evaluation has been driven by a number of factors including membership of the European Union (particularly the requirements of the Structural Funds) and recommendations of the OECD, the importance of evaluation has also become more widely recognised within Government. This is demonstrated for example by the development of the Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative.

Indeed, evaluation has been increasingly regarded as an essential mechanism in the allocation of public resources and in enhancing the design, implementation and delivery of public policies. As part of this broader development, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) has also been adopted in Ireland as a means of analysing and measuring, on an ex-ante basis, the impacts of proposed legislation.

Development and value of Regulatory Impact Analysis RIA first emerged in the United States of America following government requirements, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, to examine the economic implications (and particularly the inflationary impacts) of regulation. By the early 1990s, the EU and many OECD countries had introduced RIA which also evolved in scope to include analysis, in varying degrees, of economic, social and environmental impacts.

By providing a systematic appraisal of likely impacts, the principal purpose of RIA is to improve the quality of regulation by ensuring that it addresses market failures and achieves beneficial societal outcomes (simply stated, that any potential costs of regulation are exceeded by its benefits).

Overall, RIA aims to achieve three key objectives: • Improve the quality of legislative proposals: to facilitate a more systematic

14

and evidence-based approach to policy design and provide a balanced and comprehensive analysis of likely social, economic and environmental impacts.

• Provide an effective aid to decisionmaking: provide policy makers with comprehensive information on the rationale behind proposed interventions and enable policy makers to assess trade-offs and compare different scenarios.

• Serve as a valuable communication tool: enhance communication by making the policy development process more open and transparent to external stakeholders.

Evidence suggests that while much progress has been made in promoting and undertaking RIA within the EU and many OECD countries, regulatory analysis needs to become more embedded within the legislative decision making process.

One study for example which assessed the practice of RIA within the EU, found that the quality of analysis in documents varied, that the process was launched too late (after decisions regarding the preferred policy options were already taken) and that the approach to external consultation was not consistent.

In addition, the study identified that MEPs did not always have the time or expertise to read or understand the documents, and were often more interested in the impacts of regulation on their own Member States or particular constituencies as opposed to the EU-wide view.

Regulatory Impact Analysis in Ireland In Ireland, RIA was first introduced in 2004 following the publication of an OECD report which concluded that the slow reform of Ireland’s regulatory governance could be a bottleneck preventing sustained growth and that the economic and social assessment of proposed regulation was missing. The Taoiseach went on to announce a number of regulatory reform initiatives in 2004, including: ‘The development of a new mechanism (Regulatory Impact Analysis) by which

Government Departments and Public Bodies will be required to analyse and measure the impacts on society of any regulations being proposed.’

Like the EU institutions and many other OECD countries, Ireland has experienced similar challenges in terms of embedding regulatory analysis in the legislative process. A Review of the Operation of RIA in July 2008 (RIA Review), for instance, found that while good progress had been made in establishing the use of regulatory analysis in all Government Departments, the approach had not become fully integrated into the overall decision making process.

More specifically, although acknowledging that RIA was introduced in Ireland at a later stage compared to many other countries, the review raised concerns over the quality of some documents and their level of visibility, the degree to which external stakeholders were invited to engage with the analysis, and the extent to which RIA is regarded as an ‘add on’ at the end of the regulatory process. To this end, the review identified a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing the levels of analysis in RIAs, encouraging publication, and ensuring that RIAs help to strengthen the participation of stakeholders and improve parliamentary debate.

In taking the recommendations of the RIA Review into account, the Department

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011 of the Taoiseach published revised guidelines for RIA in June 2009. These revised guidelines reflect the need for more detailed consideration of methodological issues, outline the importance of including advice on public service implementation costs and place heavy emphasis on the value of publishing RIAs in stating that: ‘….publishing RIAs makes the policy development process more transparent and accessible to stakeholders and helps to inform the parliamentary process.’

To assist the implementation of the guidelines, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform also provides practical support to officials who are undertaking RIAs. This includes the provision of dedicated training courses and templates, and an RIA Network which shares experience and promotes best practice within and across Government Departments.

Legislative analysis and the Oireachtas Library & Research Service In common with many other parliamentary research services, the Library & Research Service (L&RS) in the Houses of the Oireachtas has developed a Legislative Analysis Service for Members. With expertise in economics, social policy analysis and law, the L&RS provides high quality research for all Members of the Houses and aims to contribute towards a well-informed parliament. Impartiality is a core value of the L&RS and the Legislative Analysis Service provides critical appraisal of legislation to support Members in their scrutiny role.

Launched in 2008, the Legislative Analysis Service is provided exclusively to Members on almost all legislation (generally, with the exception of emergency legislation and Private Member’s Bills) in advance of second stage debate. The service comprises two components, the Bill Digests and Debate Packs: • Bill Digests: Draw on relevant analytical secondary source material and explain the key elements of each Bill and their potential implications. In particular, the Digests provide Members with: • Background information on proposed legislation (including an examination of the rationale for intervention).

• Policy and legal analysis of the proposed measures in the Bill (incorporating an assessment of their potential economic, social and environmental affects).

• Comparative assessments of interventions in other countries.

• Debate Packs: Contain carefully selected authoritative and balanced secondary source material which examines

Public Affairs Ireland

Pa r l i am e n ta r y & L e g i s l at i v e A f f a i r s

the potential positive and negative implications of a Bill. The Packs typically include relevant analytical material such as excerpts from media articles, stakeholder comments and submissions, research reports and academic articles, government studies and previous parliamentary debates.

As RIA documents are a key information resource for Bill Digests and Debate Packs, the Legislative Analysis Service both complements and supplements the regulatory analysis, undertaken by Government Departments, and assists Members in their ex-ante analysis of legislation.

Promoting ex ante legislative analysis As Members operate within a highly competitive information environment, it can prove difficult for evidence-based documents to receive full consideration.

However, as a key information hub in the Houses of the Oireachtas, the L&RS has helped to bring evidence-based reports such as RIA documents to the attention of all Members. Debate Packs, for instance, include a fully copy of the RIA document, while Bill Digests use the evidence contained in the RIA documents to frame the analysis and examine alternative options. Indeed, a review of debates in the Oireachtas shows that both Government and opposition Members regularly cite analysis, contained in the Bill Digests and Debate Packs, in the Chambers.

As such, the Legislative Analysis Service complements the regulatory analysis process by providing another vehicle for RIA documents to be considered by parliament, enhancing transparency and scrutiny of government proposals and helping to embed RIA into the decision making process. In fact, it is in this vein that staff from the L&RS have liaised closely with the RIA Network to inform civil servants on the use and value of RIA documents to the Legislative Analysis Service.

At the same time, given the impartial role of the L&RS, the Legislative Analysis Service provides supplementary analysis for Members by critically appraising each RIA document. In particular, by drawing on relevant secondary source material, the Bill Digests examine the key findings of the RIA documents, test their proposals and policy options, and highlight any potential gaps in analysis. In the case of EU legislation which is relevant to Ireland, the Bill Digests also aim to adopt this approach and examine the RIA documents published by the European Commission.

Through this independent critique, the Legislative Analysis Service helps to

bring research closer to policy and law makers and support the scrutiny role of the Oireachtas.

Another supplementary feature of the Legislative Analysis Service is that each Bill Digest or Debate Pack is specifically tailored to meet the information needs of Members. For instance, the Legislative Analysis Service examines the potential implications for regional and local level includes international comparative research as Members are frequently interested in understanding Ireland’s position relative to other countries.

In addition, as the L&RS includes staff with legal expertise, the Bill Digests provide scope to focus on the specific legal aspects of each Bill. This detailed legal analysis and scrutiny of legislation is particularly relevant to debates in the Oireachtas, and provides further information to Members in addition to the broader appraisal of options contained in RIA documents.

Finally, the Legislative Analysis Service can further the research analysis contained in the RIA documents. In some instances, a lengthy period of time can exist between publication of Bills and RIA documents and discussion of the legislation at second stage. This means that the RIA documents may not always contain updated information. In these cases, the Legislative Analysis Service can progress the research process by incorporating the latest research and examining the most recent economic, social, political, legal and environmental developments.

Through a review of media commentary and stakeholder submissions, Bill Digests and Debate Packs can also capture new and additional views of external stakeholders. The Legislative Analysis Service, therefore, provides another opportunity to take stock and highlight any unforeseen consequences of proposed regulation.

Conclusion Given the increased pressures on public resources, it is clear that the evaluation of policy and legislation will become more important in Ireland. In this context, the L&RS will continue to use RIA documents and develop the Legislative Analysis Service for Members. In this way, the L&RS can build on the RIA process by providing critical analysis, enhancing parliamentary debate, and helping to ensure that the ex-ante analysis of legislation becomes more embedded in the fabric of policy and legislative decision making.

Jonathan Greer is a Senior Researcher in the Houses of Oireachtas.

15

PUBLIC PR O CURE M EN T

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Continued from front page.....

needs at a fair price while also ensuring a level playing field for all, giving our innovative SMEs a fair chance and reducing the damage to our environment through Green Procurement.”

Under the Ministers remit is the Local Government Implementation Group which seeks to deal with issues surrounding procurement. This group will be reporting to the Minister in late October or early November with an implementation plan which will suggest ways to better procurement policy, to deliver our services more efficiently at a time of scarce resources and make recommendations on how we can utilise shared services.

The Government believes better public procurement has the potential to promote sustainable economic growth.

The public sector is a major consumer of goods and services, totalling €15bn, and this represents half of the total tax take, giving the public sector “huge influence in the marketplace”. For this reason, “value for money must be the watch word and we must ensure money spent on the taxpayer’s behalf is spent wisely.” The Minister noted the transformative potential of public procurement but warned “change won’t just happen and there is always scope to do things better”.

Furthermore, the “jobs dividend is of prime importance at a time when we are trying to place Ireland as a greener, lower carbon, competitive economy – getting there certainly will be a formidable challenge”. In confronting challenges, we must not lose sight of the unprecedented pressure on the ecosystems and natural resources

From Left to Right: Martin Tully, The Clearview Group; Philip Lee, Philip Lee Solicitors; Sarah Johnson, Philip Lee Solicitors; Brian Hayes TD, Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works; David Hearn, Deloitte.

that sustain our lives and livelihoods.

Sustainable development “underpins the Government’s vision for the role that public procurement can play in Ireland’s economic development.

The Minister concluded that “our citizens need to rest assured that goods, services and works provided by public authorities are procured in such a way as to minimise the harmful effects on our environment and on our society while at the same time they must represent both short term and long term value for money.” It is “crucial to strike a balance on both cost effectiveness and sustainability.” On this front, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the National Procurement Service and others have made progress in

Phil Hogan TD, Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government.

16

incorporating “this balanced approach in many sectoral areas”.

Vincent Campbell, Director of the National Procurement Service (NPS) spoke about the work of the NPS. He explained the extent of public procurement across the public sector which signifies the “absolute necessity” for procurers to be on top of their game given the current spotlight on how money is being spent.

The procurement process must be transparent, needs to be done “efficiently and must be conducted in accordance with EU Directives and national rules” and “most importantly, we need to get value for money”. There is a significant “amount of duplication in the system, a considerable amount of up-skilling is required”. “As public procurers, there is a role for us to work together critically and strategically with a strong focus on doing things better.”

Mr Campbell continued by outlining the aims of the National Procurement Service which include: the organisation of procurement of common goods and services; to achieve greater value for money and efficiency; to improve compliance; to ensure availability of relevant training across the public sector; to integrate wholeof-Government policy issues; and to expand and manage e-tenders.

Functions conducted by the NPS include: specialist procurement Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

projects; encouragement of interaction between sectors by creating networks of procurement professionals and the establishment of links with public sector procurement with counterparts in the UK, Scotland etc.; offer advice; develop education and training; and the development of best practices. Mr Campbell is keen to point out that the NPS “cannot do everything” so “we strategically look at areas or specific categories such as the HSE or the Local Authority sector, where we can make an impact”. NPS contacts are now available right across the public sector, and “it is critical that when we do go to the market, we are giving better value for money, people need to realise that “centralised contracts are the best way forward”.

Niall Bohan, Head of Unit, DG Internal Market C4 European Commission spoke about EU procurement legislation and the upcoming changes to the legislation which are being adopted with a view to fostering “demand for environmentally and socially responsible and innovative goods and services and to develop simpler and more flexible procurement procedures and easier access for companies including SMEs”. The overall “purpose of the legislative review is to try enabling the use of public procurement to reach these targets.”

The key factors which are driving the review include: the costly and onerous procurement procedures, particularly for small-value contracts; limited possibilities to negotiate value for money; risk averse behaviour, which stifles innovative and strategic

procurement; fragmented and closed markets (72 percent of companies do not bid cross-border primarily due to structural barriers); the need to respond to key structural changes and the need to use procurement to support other policy objectives such as Green Procurement.

To engineer the change, the EU Commission launched the Green Paper earlier this year and the consultation undertaken showed that procurers want an increased ability to negotiate, increased thresholds, clarification on the treatment of e-services, to be able to take previous experience and tenders into account and clarification on public body cooperation and shared services.

Mr Bohan outlined some preliminary areas which will be addressed by the upcoming legislation. One focus will be a review of the scope of the Directive, which may however result in a reduction of transparency and competition.

Other issues they feel they can respond more effectively to include: the need to ensure greater freedom to use negotiation; better tools for repetitive purchasing; increased use of e-procurement; and review procedures to support innovative procurement.

One of the “big issues” that needs to be addressed is the administrative capacity across the EU where currently 250,000 staff are procuring goods and services on a part-time basis. We need to “establish central purchasing bodies with a clear regulatory framework” who will serve as “hubs on the EU public procurement landscape”. Red-tape or administrative burdens need to be reduced to aid SMEs and cross-border

PUBLIC PR O CURE M EN T

participation. Finally, the new legislation needs to enable awarding authorities to take account of externalities when awarding contracts for example by allowing proven methodologies.

The Commission proposal on this area will to be published by the end of 2011. The onus is then on Member states, EU Council and EU Parliament “to take it forward”.

Donal McNally, Second Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform noted a common feature identified on various groups he has sat on was the “lack of focus on efficiency and cost effectiveness”. An important message relating to public procurement that is often overlooked is that the State can determine market prices.

Mr McNally recalled that An Bord Snip suggested that the OPW be given responsibility for all state property including the HSE and local authority assets. It also suggested it should publish contract prices on its website to improve transparency and encourage lower prices. While the latter was carried the former initiative failed to materialise.

However, he said that “progress is being made on a number of fronts – the “NPS has been set up and it is proving its worth, we are trying to bring in more transparency to help SMEs and up skill them to be proactive”.

Mr McNally warned against different arms of the State competing against each other for contracts such as in the renewable energy sector where all the principle investors are state bodies. The review group on state

Above left, from left to right: John McEntegert, Ordnance Survey Ireland; Charles Collier, Ordnance Survey Ireland; Mary Merry, Ordnance Survey Ireland; Louise McEntee, Deloitte. Above right: Delegates at Public Affairs Ireland 6th Conference on Public Procurement, Gresham Hotel, Dublin, 22 September 2011.

Public Affairs Ireland

17

PUBLIC PR O CURE M EN T

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

“There is no easy course”, Mr McNally concluded, the basis to the answer “is to remain competitive, especially in a small open economy”.

Above: Philip Lee, Philip Lee Solicitors.

assets was surprised at the “scale and rate in investment that commercial bodies undertook in the past ten years without full regard for future demand which may lead to over-investment, for example airport investment.

The State assets review, Mr McNallysaid, raised the question as to who supervises all this spending, a question that was raised as far back as the 1960s.

It can also be asked whether private companies could supply the same services, provided there is regulation.

Bord na Mona, for example, has expanded into many areas where private companies compete, yet it remains in the state sector.

Mr McNally noted that “whether we buy or sell state assets the important thing is to get a good return for the state.”

The Local Authority review group found that procurement practices did seem to have a strong focus on efficiency, utilised online procurement and had strong links with the NPS. However, there is less local revenue to fund public services.

With regard to the procurement of labour services with the myriad of allowances in the public sector that add substantially to the pay bill, this makes such services more difficult to procure than in normal market circumstances.

“Government is not solely concerned with saving money” but also concerned with jobs. Drawing on issues raised by previous speakers on cross border purchasing, Mr McNally noted how procurers can often be faced with the contradictory dilemma of being told to buy the cheapest, yet not to buy outside of Ireland.

18

Philip Lee, Managing Partner at Philip Lee Solicitors discussed public procurement from a legal perspective highlighting how, given the current climate, they are seeing a huge increase in the number of firms challenging procurement decisions.

“We, as a law firm, are seeing a hugely heightened ability or desire to challenge procurement decisions or reward decisions.”

After outlining the legal requirements for challenging such decisions Mr Lee put the question to delegates whether going to court immediately is the right route given the number of significant disadvantages in procurement challenges.

The first “serious disdvantage” is the adversarial nature of litigation in procurement challenges, where the challenger “actually wants to work with you”. The courts system is also “unattractive” due to the costs involved and the lack of procurement knowledge amongst judges. Other dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation in the form of a dispute adjudication board would be a more favourable option.

With this option, “there are no

disadvantages (...) less antagonism and less cost and hopefully better eventual decisions.”

Moving on, Mr Lee discussed the need for amalgamation within local authorities. “My simple maths suggests that if I was to take the 34 local authorities and bring them down to 4 or 6, nearly €450m would be saved a year.” He says that with this move, the various local authorities would be “better resourced”.

Sarah Johnson, Partner at Phillip Lee Solicitors went through the financial standing issues that arise for many public procurement procedures saying that they span the whole of the process from the planning stage all the way through to contract execution.

Ms Johnson highlighted how there are specific provisions within the EU procurement directive about minimum criteria and they need to be transparent.

She asked if “the normal measures of financial standing are adequate?” and if using turnover figures to assess financial standing is appropriate.

Contracting authorities are more fearful of undertaking a more qualitative assessment because there aren’t the tools out there to do that. Ms Johnson described “flimsy” partnership agreements that are taking place just to win a contract.

She feels that this is worrying as the

From Left to Right: Vincent Campbell, Director, National Procurement Service, Office of Public Works; Niall Bohan, DG Internal Market C4 European Commission; Phil Hogan TD, Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government; David Hearn, Partner, Deloitte; Don Bergin, Public Affairs Ireland.

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

authority often doesn’t seek any more information about whether the companies will be jointly and separately “live” in the contract. She explained that this is “open to abuse”.

David Hearn, Consulting Partner, Deloitte echoed the sentiments shared by other speakers by firstly outlining the challenges facing procurement such as, “changes in technology, the green agenda, the need for increased transparency and public scrutiny”.

He spoke about the need to strike a balance of reducing expenditure on goods and services while not increasing the procurer’s own costs. “The amount of money we spend on procurement in the public sector is about €15bn.

That has only come down by €250m between 2009 and 2010 out of a €9.3bn spend on goods and services. That’s about 3 percent.”

Mr Hearn compared this to the private sector where reduction in procurement stands at about 10 percent. He said that given the fact that Ireland is going through the worst financial crisis in history, “a 3 percent reduction does not seem enough”.

He continued to highlight how the private sector is becoming more efficient. He said that the public sector “needs to put an organisation structure in place with full time professionals” and explained that the scope for development in procurement savings from professionalising the service are considerable.

On shared services, he believes that there is scope for co-operation between the public and private sectors in particular in “transaction processing”. Payments,

Above: Brian Hayes TD, Minister of State at the Department of FInance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works.

creating and issuing purchase orders, procurement of materials and services etc can readily be outsourced at a considerable saving to the State.

Brian Hayes TD, Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works described the various areas and issues he is currently seeking to advance within the Government and stated that we need to “up our game” in terms of public procurement, and that the “eye was taken off the ball” in the past.

The recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General showed the problems that exist in public sector procurement when it comes to noncompetitive tendering.

“The idea that €75m was paid out for

Above: Sarah Johnson, Philip Lee Solicitors; Mark Kidney, An Bord Bia.

Public Affairs Ireland

PUBLIC PR O CURE M EN T

contracts that were not put out for competitive tendering is wrong and we need to address that and have a much higher specification in the means through which public sector procurers award contracts.”

He reiterated that “this is an issue I intend to take further with the entire gambit of public sector agencies and departments.”

He went on to say that he is very “encouraged” by an initiative launched during the summer which has seen the Government enter into talks with key suppliers to the State. “We need to get away from the idea that suppliers have relationships with local public sector procurers. From now on suppliers need to realise they’re dealing with the whole of government – they are dealing with Ireland plc.”

“We’re looking for dividends from them because of the fact that they are obviously obtaining very significant contracts from us. We don’t think it is unfair or wrong that our key suppliers should not give more to us.”

In his concluding remarks the Minister said that “there are great opportunities in public sector procurement. We have an awful lot to learn from the private sector – we want to work closely with the private sector making sure that information on the opportunities that exist is out there.”

The conference was chaired by Don Bergin, Director of Public Affairs Ireland and Martin Tully, Managing Director, the Clearview Group & was kindly sponsored

by Deloitte and Philip Lee Solicitors.

19

PUBLIC A D M INIS T R A T I O N

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

Sharing experiences from regulatory impact assessments Since June 2005, Government Departments are required to prepare Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) to accompany proposals that are put forward for new or amended regulations. Tom Ferris looks at what has been happening and discloses why assessments need to be publicised

In June 2005, the then Government decided that the regulatory impact analysis process should be used to evaluate all new regulations in Government departments and offices.

Regulations include any laws (or other official rules) that affect people and businesses. In March 2011, the Programme for Government went one step further when it stated that Departments would be required “...to publish Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) before Government decisions are taken, thereby offering a further channel to obtain the views of civil society on new rules and regulations”.

While previously there was a requirement to publish RIAs, there was no commitment to have publication before Government decisions made. It makes sense that Departments should publish RIAs before Government decisions are actually taken, so as to enable the full range of alternatives to be examined and commented on.

It is important to recognise from the beginning that an RIA is not a substitute for decision-making, but rather a tool that helps to improve the quality of political and administrative decision-making, while also serving the important values of openness, public involvement and accountability. To meet these values, it is clear that RIAs should be conducted at an early stage, and before a decision to regulate has been taken. Early preparation allows consultation to take place with those who are likely to be most affected.

This can help decision makers to be fully informed about the costs, benefits and impacts of the options available to them.

The follow-up on the Government commitment, to address non-payment problems in the construction industry, provides a recent example of a RIA that has been published. On September 26

20

2011, Mr Brian Hayes TD, Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform published the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the Construction Contracts Bill.

Upon welcoming the publication, Minister Hayes stated that: “In line with the Programme for Government commitment we are publishing the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) to inform debate and provide details of the analysis undertaken of the regulatory issues relating to the Bill.”

Publication of RIAs The European Commission currently

“There is a need, now more than ever, to see more assessments being publicised, so that experiences can be shared”

leads the way in publishing RIAs, or what they call ‘impact assessments’.

As well as publishing all completed impact assessments, the European Commission separately presents those impact assessment reports it has identified as “current best practice”. In addition, the European Commission set-up an oversight body in 2006, the Impact Assessment Board, which provides independent quality control and support for Commission impact assessments. The Board examines and issues opinions on the quality of individual draft impact assessments prepared by the Commission.

Ultimately it is the Commission which decides whether or not to adopt an initiative, taking account of the impact assessment and the Board’s opinion.

The work of the Board is transparent.

All impact assessments and all opinions from the Impact Assessment Board are published once the Commission has adopted the relevant proposal.

With regard to Ireland, the recent requirement to publish regulatory impact analyses puts pressure on Government Departments to produce good quality RIAs. This onus will be stronger on those who have not shown much evidence of producing RIAs to date. In a report published in November 2010, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) pointed out that the gap between the principles of RIA and the practice generally remained wide. Specifically, the OECD argued that “the process continues to operate within a weak institutional framework which does not sufficiently ‘scare’ departments into cooperating for the production of quality RIAs”. It saw name-and-shame as a tool to get Departments to produce good RIAs and to publish them.

The OECD did not hide its concern about low rates of publication of RIAs in

Public Affairs Ireland

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011 Ireland. In evidence, the OECD stated that its team had “...heard that there is considerable resistance to publication.

It also heard that publication would be a significant lever to promote change”. It will be interesting to see the extent to which the commitment in the Programme for Government, requiring the publication of RIAs, is being realised.

Impact of EU on Ireland The legislative work of the EU impacts on member states including Ireland.

Naturally, Ireland has to be concerned in its negotiations to ensure that this country’s interests are always being taken into account. The OECD Report, published in November 2010, acknowledges that the establishment of clear and formalised structures for the management of EU regulations has helped to strengthen Irish performance. They also acknowledge that co-ordination and monitoring have improved. However, the OECD is of the view that the application of RIA to EU regulations is far from systematic, and it suggests that “one way of applying pressure on departments to comply [with guidelines] is to ensure that RIAs are attached to the drafts sent to the parliament (in the case of draft directives the information may be less developed than for adopted directives)”.

PUBLIC A D M INIS T R A T I O N

This issue was addressed by the Mr. Brendan Howlin TD, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in a statement posted on March 18 2011, on the Department’s website. He stated that, in future, Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared for Ministers on all EU Directives and significant regulations will be automatically forwarded to the relevant sectoral Oireachtas committees. Furthermore, he stated that “…these committees will be required to advise the Minister and the Joint Committee on European Affairs whether EU directives should be transposed into Irish law by statutory instrument or by primary legislation”.

It is important that other interested parties should also be informed. After all, elected politicians and officials are not the source of all wisdom.

In the final analysis, judgments have to be made in completing impact assessments as to the likely impacts, both positive and negative, of any new regulation. The more assistance that can be availed of from as wide a range of sources as possible, the better the likely judgments.

Conclusion At this juncture, it would not appear that all completed RIAs, are being publicised widely enough for all interested parties and the public to see. While Departments may argue

that they are indeed publishing their RIAs, it is not always easy to find them on Departments’ websites.

Some Departments are better than others at publicising their outputs. For example, it is relatively easy to access RIAs produced by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on its website. However, greater efforts are needed to disseminate the results of RIAs. One way of spreading the RIA message further afield would be to have a central government website, similar to the one for the Peer Reviews of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Projects. Such a central website would make RIAs more widely available, facilitate the sharing of relevant experiences and recommendations and help to better shape the design of future regulatory policies. The website could potentially be managed by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, given that there is usually some dimension of public expenditure associated with most regulations. But specific location is not the critical issue. It is a more matter of having a ‘one-stop-website’ so that those wishing to study completed RIAs can easily find them.

Tom Ferris is a consultant economist. He was formerly a Senior Economist at the Department of Transport.

PAI Training: Public Procurement

Certificate in Public Procurement ICM Accredited Commences 24th October 2011

Public Affairs Ireland has developed this Institute of Commercial Management accredited Certificate Course to give individuals in the Irish public sector a complete overview of the procurement process from scoping and tendering to evaluation and meeting legal/regulatory requirements.

The tutors on this course are procurement experts. Delegates will also hear presentations from guest speakers responsible for the procurement function from public sector organisations.

For more information click here

SE M IN A RS

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Upcoming Seminars at PAI

Early Retirement, Redundancy and Selection Issues in the Public Sector in Ireland Thursday October 20

Leading & Supervising Teams Wednesday November 16

The Economic Crisis Explained Monday October 24

Minute Taking Thursday November 17

Making Use of the Labour Relations Commission & Conciliation Services Wednesday October 26 Writing for the Web Wednesday October 26 Report Writing Wednesday November 9 Whistleblowers & the Public Sector Thursday November 10 Quarries & Planning Acts Thursday November 10

Plain English Wednesday November 16

Legal Aspects of Social Media Thursday November 24 Practical applications of lean six sigma Tuesday November 29 Measuring the Effectiveness of Training Tuesday November 29 No Nonsense Project Management Wednesday November 30 Editing Skills Thursday December 1

Public Speaking & Presenting Skills Tuesday November 27

To register your interest for any of the seminars or courses please email training@publicaffairsireland.com, call 01 8198500 or book online at www.publicaffairsireland.com

Public Affairs Ireland OCTOBER 2011

PUBLIC A D M INIS T R A T I O N

Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) Report on the Appropriation Accounts 2010: Chapter on Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) Don Bergin looks at the Performance Management and Development System and suggests how Continuing Professional Development (CPD) may be useful for the public service

In 2010, approximately 36,400 staff were employed in the civil service and the related pay bill was approximately €1.7bn. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) state that the effective management of civil service human resources is critical if the State is to maximise value in the form of focused activities from its workforce.

The Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) had been introduced in 2000, with amendments in 2005 which, inter alia, tied PMDS performance to the payment of increments.

Given that PMDS has now been in operation in the civil service for over ten years and its implementation entails a significant resource commitment, the C&AG decided to review the PMDS. In the chapter, the C&AG reports the results of the review which sought to establish: • The consistency and quality of the PMDS assessment process • The extent of timely compliance with PMDS • Whether pay increments are effectively linked to appraisal results and appraisals are carried out on all staff • How well the system is contributing to competency development and performance improvement.

There are no single major or startling conclusions from the review. By and large, the system seems to be working albeit with admitted glitches. For example, the Accounting Officer of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform stated that the award of an increment was, at least in some cases, based on an unrealistic rating and it was likely therefore that increments were being paid even where there was a problem with performance.

He also stated that in PMDS, “each role profile identifies competencies required to carry out the job. Development of those competencies over a period can lead to development of the capability of the organisation as the competencies are practised. This mutual relationship

Public Affairs Ireland

between personal performance and organisational performance lies at the core of PMDS”.

Professionalising public service delivery is at the forefront in the drive to modernise public services and to provide value for money. PMDS can make a substantial contribution in this respect.

There will be a huge outflow of senior staff before end of February next year under the early retirement scheme when the current favourable rules on retirement allowances and payments come to an end. PMDS can play a role in ensuring that key competencies are not lost in that outflow.

Undermined development One suspects that the “D” or development part of PMDS gets short shrift when it comes to other priorities such as dealing with PQs, proposals, correspondence, etc. That would be the case even in normal times but, in these abnormal times, development seems to be taking a back seat given shortages of staff and budget cutbacks. In this environment, it is clear that officials have cut back significantly on training, so the conclusion must be that development needs are not being addressed adequately. This neglect has the potential to become a serious problem for the public service particularly in the context of the expected outflow of experienced staff.

The report states that “central to the analysis is the notion that appropriate and effective competency development is critical to organisational success.” It also calls for encouragement of “personal ownership of development through action research and other self-monitoring and evaluation techniques or methods.” This concept recalls the close relationship between personal performance and performance at the organisational level.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for the public service CPD is essentially statutory development

training and was introduced by many professional bodies representing lawyers, accountants, the medical profession etc.

It ensures that members take part in ongoing training. The quantity of training varies from profession to profession and tends not to be overly prescriptive.

For example, the current Law Society requirement regarding the quantity of training is as follows: “The CPD requirement for the 2011 cycle is 12 hours, (to include a minimum of three hours management and professional development skills and a minimum of one hour regulatory matters).

The CPD Scheme booklet and record card for the 2011 cycle are now available to download in the members’ area. Login with your solicitor number and password and go to the CPD /CPD Scheme section to view the current information.”

Practical steps to address development needs As a practical step to help with addressing the development of public servants and the transition for the staff left behind after 1 March 2012, perhaps the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should consider introducing “CPD for the Public Service”?

It could readily be introduced as a further embellishment of PMDS designed to enhance the “development” part of PMDS. By doing so, the public service will also improve the performance element both at the individual and the organisation level.

It would seem that this might be introduced as a general provision or incentive and it would then be up to each supervisor under PMDS to identify with the individual concerned the appropriate training for the coming year or cycle. It seems otherwise that the development of public servants will suffer further and the public service as a whole will be the poorer.

Don Bergin is a former civil servant and is a Director of Public Affairs Ireland.

23

‘Cafeteria Consultancy’ A unique one-day event which provides management consultancy in bite size chunks

   

Need Practical Management Advice?

Pressed for Time?

Minimal Budget for Training?

Cafeteria Consultancy is the Answer!

Cafeteria Consultancy is a set of training seminars in a day that provides practical advice and support to people in the SME, public and voluntary sector on the following day to day issues :        

Performance Management Bullying & Harassment Impactful Presentations Interviewing Skills Emotional Intelligence Project Management Time Management Marketing Skills

Only pay for what you attend! The event consists of 90 minute workshops run throughout the day so you can choose to pay for one, two, three or four sessions and not commit the whole day to the event if you do not wish to.

Where?

56 Aungier St. Dublin 2

When?

27 Oct 2011

Time?

9:30am - 5:30pm

How Much?

from €30 for 1 session to €99 for all 4 sessions

Find out more: www.bit.ly/pLHXY41

The concept is to provide experienced management consultancy experts at a fraction of the cost for a private consultation.

A partnership event between The Wheel and Management Briefs.

The Wheel (www.wheel.ie) devised this training day to help support busy personnel working in our sector. In talking with our good friends at Management Briefs we came up with this new and innovative approach. Frank Scott Lennon, managing director of Management Briefs (www.managementbriefs.com), has put together a team of his consultant experts to provide 90 minute workshops on a range of relevant topics throughout the day.

Public Affairs Ireland – a value for money offering Did you know that your subscription to Public Affairs Ireland provides you with many additional services and benefits?

For a single subscription of €470 per year (excl. VAT @ 21%) all subscribers receive; • A copy of the monthly Public Affairs Ireland Journal which deals with key issues of importance to the public sector in Ireland and features many of Irelands leading economic, accounting, management, legal and public policy experts.

• The informative and accessible weekly Public Affairs Ireland Newsletter containing news and an update of Oireachtas and Government business, sent by email every Friday to an unlimited number of email addresses in each subscriber organisation.

• Member access to the Public Affairs Ireland website and

archive covering 79 editions of the Public Affairs Ireland Journal since October 2002 • Discounts to PAI education and training – with many conferences, courses and seminars throughout the year on issues of key relevance to the public sector, these discounts amount to real savings for subscriber organisations.

In addition to the standard subscription package, Public Affairs Ireland also provides tailored subscription arrangements for organisations that wish to secure online organisation wide or Intranet access to the Public Affairs Ireland Journal and archive.

For details on subscriptions please visit our website (www.publicaffairsireland.com) or contact us on 01 8198590.

Appointments PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND 25 Mountjoy Square East, Dublin 1

DIRECTORS Donald Bergin Garrett Fennell EDITORIAL TEL: 01 8198530 SUBSCRIPTIONS TEL (ACCOUNTS): 01 8198517 FAX: 01 8944733 EMAIL: editor@publicaffairsireland.com accounts@publicaffairsireland.com WEB: www.publicaffairsireland.com EDITOR: Sarah Kilduff Publishing ASSISTANT & Design: Aisling O’Sullivan RESEARCH INTERN: Jennifer Stack PRINTING: Public Affairs Ireland

Arts Council: New members Dr Eimear O’Connor Mr Mark O’Regan Mr Ciarán Walsh Student Grants Appeal Board Maureen Waldron (Chairperson) Mr. Padraig McNamara (vice-Chair) Dr. Marie Clarke Ms. Rebecca Murphy Ms. Eithne Frost Brenna Clarke Prof. Kevin Ryan Committee to Monitor the Effectiveness of the Garda Diversion Programme John Twomey (Chairperson) Chief Superintendent Anne Marie McMahon Ms Norah Gibbons, Director of Advocacy, Barnardos Mr John Cheatle, Barrister Mr Eugene McErlean Position: Board of the Citizens Information Board

Public Affairs Ireland is published by PAI Publications Limited. The opinions expressed by contributors in this journal are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of PAI Publications Limited.

All rights are reserved and no part of this publication may be scanned, photocopied, copied or duplicated in any form or by any means without permission of PAI Publications Limited.

Ms. Isolde Goggin Position: Chairperson of the Competition Authority Mr Paul Reid Position: Director of Reform & Delivery Office of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

Tenders 1. Title: Campus Infrastructure/Enabling Works Project By: The Institute of Technology Tallaght Awarded to: SIAC Construction Ltd Value: €2.8m 2. Title: Procurement of a Completion Contractor for the CASH Building By: The Institute of Technology Tallaght Awarded to: BAM Building Ltd Value: €3.6m 3. Title: Wastewater Treatment Plant at Thomastown, Co. Wicklow By: Wicklow County Council Awarded to: Fm Environment Ltd Value: Not disclosed 4. Title: Operation and Management of 3 Civic Amenity Sites at Kells, Navan and Trim, Co. Meath By: Meath County Council Awarded to: Oxigen Value: €212,000 (excl VAT) 5. Title: Public Sector Energy Efficiency Monitoring and Reporting Framework to 2020 By: Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland Awarded to: Byrne Ó Cléirigh

Value: €189,959 6. Title: Loughlinstown Swimming Pool By: Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Awarded to: PJ Hegarty & Sons Value: €6.5m 7. Title: Provision of marketing management consultancy services By: Office of the Ombudsman Awarded to: Murray Consultants Value: €1.3m 8. Title: Irish Coast Guard Station, Crosshaven, Co Cork By: Office of Public Works Awarded to: Cumnor Construction Ltd Value: €1.5m 9. Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge By: Dublin City Council Awarded to: Graham Projects Limited Value: €5.9m