I remind members and witnesses to switch off their mobile phones as they cause interference with the broadcasting equipment. I welcome Mr. John Kinnane, principal officer, and his colleagues, Mr. Struan Charters and Ms Caroline O'Loughlin. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Public Service Performance Report 2017, a copy of which has been circulated to members. The report is designed to link the budget of €54 billion for public sector bodies to performance information.
Public Service Performance Report 2017: Discussion
Our committee's focus on reform of the budget process is on making recommendations to improve accountability, effectiveness and efficiency. Therefore, our meeting today is a useful opportunity to examine the format and existing process for performance-based budgeting and to see whether it meets the needs of Parliament and the public at large. Following our meeting today, the committee may wish to write to the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform with recommendations on further improvements to the budget process.
If members and witnesses will bear with me, I will deal with privilege. Before we hear the witnesses' opening statement, I want to draw attention to the position of privilege which applies to officials who may contribute to the meeting. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of evidence they give to the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and you continue to do so you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the fact that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him her identifiable.
With that, I invite Mr. Kinnane to make his opening statement.
Mr. John Kinnane
Ms Caroline O'Loughlin will make the opening statement.
Ms Caroline O'Loughlin
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear before the committee and the opportunity to discuss the public service performance report 2017 and answer any questions the committee may have on performance reporting and its role within the overall expenditure framework. When it comes to the detail on any issues regarding specific performance indicators, the relevant line Departments are best placed to address such matters.
Following the Government's submission to the select committee on arrangements for budgetary scrutiny in June 2016, the first public service performance report was published in April last year. The second publication, the public service performance report 2017, was published last Friday, 27 April. The performance report is a key element of a suite of expenditure reform measures implemented in Ireland. The objective of this report is to create a space in the budget process for performance dialogue, focusing on results delivered from public expenditure in terms of outputs and impacts. An ongoing focus on efficient and effective delivery of public services is an essential part of an expenditure framework targeted at ensuring sustainable public finances.
Performance budgeting was introduced initially on a pilot basis for the 2011 Estimates, before being rolled out across all Departments. At that time, with the revised Estimates volume, REV, being published in spring each year, it was possible to report on outturn information for the previous year alongside the REV targets for the current year. However, following changes to the budgetary timetable at European level, the outturn information cannot be provided in the REV due to the timing of REV publication in December each year. The performance report addresses this shortfall in regard to outturn information by providing timely quantitative information on what was delivered with public funds in the previous year. This creates an opportunity for meaningful dialogue on Government performance.
The report clearly presents relevant performance indicators in a dedicated, focused document. The report is arranged by Vote group and provides an overview of the funding allocated to each Vote group as well as staff numbers, trends across categories of expenditure and a breakdown of the composition of spend and spend by programme. Output information is then presented in a dashboard format at programme level. Each Vote group then reports on a number of key performance metrics for each programme area across a range of activities. Key metrics are identified by line Departments themselves.
This year the report also includes an update on the equality reporting pilot that is under way. The ongoing work regarding equality reporting in Ireland follows the programme for a partnership Government commitment to develop the process of budget and policy proofing as a means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and strengthening economic and social rights. Some six relevant diverse policy areas from six Departments were selected, with the equality dimension of gender the focus at the current time. Those Departments were asked to identify goals and associated targets and reported on these in the revised Estimates volume 2018, published last December. The public service performance report 2017 contains an update on progress on achieving the targets set for each of the pilot areas.
As this is only the second year a public service performance report has been produced, it is expected that the presentation of information and approach taken will be developed and refined over time. The intention is that, over time, the information provided in the report will build up a picture of performance trends within a given sector through consistent reporting of key metrics. Outturn information can then be mapped against targets to give a picture of what is being delivered through public resources and help to track progress towards strategic outcomes. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform welcomes feedback from the Oireachtas on how to develop the report so that it best supports the scrutiny needs of committees. I thank the committee.
I thank Ms O'Loughlin. I will open the discussion to Deputies. The first to indicate was Deputy Jonathan O'Brien.
My first question concerns the performance information which is provided and how that links into budgetary decisions. Could the witnesses give us some detail on that? I presume the information is used to make budgetary decisions.
Mr. John Kinnane
Yes. As stated in the opening statement, it was one of a number of reforms which were introduced in the area of expenditure management to try to ensure that the budgetary process is focused on what is being delivered with funds. The performance report provides detail for each Government Department. Drilling down further below that detail, a spending review process goes into a lot more detail on what is being delivered and how effectively public services are being delivered. The output from the spending review process, alongside the performance report, then feeds into budgetary discussions when settling overall Estimate amounts.
Page 17 referred to the Department of Education and Skills and outlined what has been delivered. It states that an additional 770 students have been provided with school transport. Did more students look for school transport? Does the figure of 770 take demographics into account? It is one thing to say that an additional 770 students were provided with school transport, but did that meet the demand? Can Mr. Kinnane understand the question I am asking?
Mr. John Kinnane
I do not have specific information on school transport. Some of the other metrics highlighted on page 17 with respect to the Department of Education and Skills include resource teaching-learning support posts where there was a 14% increase year on year. Likewise, there was an 8% increase year on year in the number of special needs assistants. This feeds into the overall discussion in terms of the spending review process which was carried out last year. A more detailed job of work was done which specifically examined special education and resource teaching.
The performance indicator will not provide the answers by itself, but it provokes discussion. In terms of analysing the spending review process of expenditure across all Government programmes over a three-year period, the idea is that by focusing on performance indicators from the performance report and carrying out further analysis through the spending review process we can address those issues so that at budget time the discussion is based on facts. As the Deputy said, we can determine whether something is fulfilling a demographic need or there are other underlying drivers.
On other areas of expenditure such as social protection, a paper last year looked at the key drivers underpinning growth figures relating to disability allowance. The performance report is one part of a suite of measures which were introduced to try to ensure the whole budgetary discussion is focused on the facts in order to determine whether changes are down to demographics or other drivers are involved and what is driving increased demand for services in certain areas.
This is the second year that this has been published. What lessons were learned from last year and what learning will be brought to bear on next year's publication? Where are the gaps in terms of the data being collected?
Mr. John Kinnane
Let us take a step back and look at how performance budgeting started initially. Performance information would have been published in the revised Estimates volume, REV. Before the change in the European timetable for the budget, the REV would have been published around March-April each year. The output data would have been published alongside the targets for the current year. With the performance budgeting initiative, initially there were many key performance metrics that Departments had set that were qualitative, that described certain processes rather than setting out the key metrics that one can measure in terms of numbers. There was a detailed job of work done in 2016, and my colleague Ms Caroline O'Loughlin could speak on some of the changes that came about to try to refine the metrics that we use both in the revised Estimates volume and in the performance report.
Ms Caroline O'Loughlin
As Mr. Kinnane mentioned, timing was a key issue on when data were available for a lot of the metrics. He mentioned the qualitative data, but those were not very clear. The whole purpose of the report is that achievement and goals can be clearly defined and progress can be clearly shown. That was certainly an issue when we were refining the metrics for this edition.
How do the metrics that have been chosen line up with the strategic plans of the Department? On first reading, it seems that some of the metrics are very basic. We spend a great deal of time in the Chamber discussing the health and justice and equality budgets in particular. The Government spends a great deal of time reacting to all kinds of crisis in those two budget areas. When one looks at the metrics in health and in justice and equality, the information we need is simply not there. Let me give some examples, people waiting for a longer time than 52 weeks for first access to acute hospital care. That number is growing dramatically. A time series would have been helpful on that to give us the real information to decide on how much money we need to get those disgraceful figures into something we could stand over as politicians. In respect of justice and equality, I have no idea of what is happening in the Garda Síochána on the detection of crime. We have burglaries, although it is a terrible crime but they are probably lower down the scale than other much more serious crime and the actual jobs that An Garda Síochána does. The information seems to be very basic and does not seem to be that informative or give us any kind of fundamental grounds on which we can calculate what expenditure should be in the future. The database seems primitive and bears little relationship to what would be the strategic plans of the Department.
Mr. John Kinnane
The performance budgeting initiative was to move away from the revised Estimates volume, REV. The revised Estimates volume would have provided a significant level of detail, down to the micro level of the subheads in terms of financial inputs and it would not have supported a discussion as to how public services are being delivered with those funds. They certainly provided a detailed overview of the financial resources but did not try to link those financial resources with outputs. The performance budgeting initiative is a tool that when one looks at the REV, the high level goals are linked into the Department's statement of strategy and the programmes selected by Departments should also be linked into those statements of strategy. The Departments themselves select the metrics. The role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is to try to ensure that the metrics are measurable. The review that was carried out in 2016 was focused on ensuring that the information being presented was measurable, so that, as Deputy Broughan pointed out, over time one can develop a time series, so one can see what direction the various outputs are going. With qualitative indicators one cannot.
Through the Chair, would it be better if the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform selected the metrics based on policy debates and so forth and what the public expects our national expenditure to address? Would that not be a better approach to hold Departments to account?
Mr. John Kinnane
The other important stakeholders with regard to this report are the relevant sectoral committees, because the discussion on the Estimates and the consideration of the Estimates provides the opportunity and the space. We are trying to present information in an accessible format, so that it is a relatively short document that is clear and by removing many of these qualitative indicators, we are focusing on what is being measured. By focusing on these types of metrics, it will drive out the types of issues of whether we are measuring the right things or should we be measuring different indicators and that is a discussion the relevant sectoral committees can have with the line Departments and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform with the line Departments also.
A final point on the performance of Departments, many of the front-line services are carried out by agencies operating under them, which are virtually independent but heavily publicly funded. Do these metrics help us in any way to evaluate for example the performance of the National Transport Authority or whatever in delivering the aims of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport?
Mr. John Kinnane
The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport would have to address that. I could not provide an answer on that specific issue.
I thank the Department for the report. I know a great deal of work goes into producing this report that allows us to be in a position to scrutinise the various budgetary commitments from a monetary perspective and the different avenues by which the issues are addressed. I have not gone through the report in enough detail to be able to question it in depth, but I am sure I will get an opportunity in the coming weeks to address it.
I am not so sure that the title is necessarily appropriate. My understanding of a performance report would be where I might be in a position to measure the output, which the Department officials call the performance, against policy commitments made by Government in a programme for Government, for example. A glaringly obvious example in the report occurs in the note on school transport routes in the Department of Education and Skills. There are approximately 6,770 school transport routes, which is an increase year on year of 474. I have no doubt that there are fewer children availing of school transport provided by the State on foot of the changes that were made to the rules pertaining to how people get on a bus. If one did not qualify, but yet there was a place available, there was an opportunity for children to get on that bus. That is not the situation anymore. It is more refined than it was and that is the type of measurement and performance that I would like to quantify and qualify, but I do not get that opportunity here. Of course, I could use it to go and measure that myself, but if the intention is for this committee to measure and adjudicate on performance on behalf of the public and allow them to make up their minds thereafter when the opportunity arises, so be it.
However, I do not think this information does that. It is hard to find a means by which that can be done, but the programme for Government, for example, should be tested against the performance here and an adjudication made. Some would say that the Department is discussing opinions rather than facts. If I immediately see this and put down a parliamentary question asking how many children are availing of the school transport system, and I see a reduction, I do not see that measured here or the performance being quantified year on year.
The other issue relates to equality. There are glaring issues in the public domain on equality, not only about the expectation of equality of opportunity. Fairness in terms of gender and equality of pay for new entrants compared with workers employed prior to 2011 are two glaring issues that must be addressed and we need to see that there is progress on those. Talks are ongoing on pay inequality regarding new entrants and we hope and expect that, by virtue of those talks taking place at all, there is a prospect of resolution. We await the results of that. Those are issues that do not jump out at me from the report. I know that the Department has looked at pilot programmes for equality reporting that can be measured over time. However, if one is talking about public service performance and if the public looks at this and wants to measure what progress have been made on equality, those are the two simple things that I would expect them to find in this report that they will not see.
Finally, I do not know how relevant this might be to today's discussion but the wider discussion relating to the Department of Health and the HSE and so on. The State Claims Agency is accountable to the NTMA. The NTMA is accountable to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. What interaction does the Department have in that chain with the State Claims Agency? Does the Department, in turn, interact with other Departments based on the information provided to it by the NTMA on foot of actions that are taken, where the State Claims Agency is acting on behalf of the State?
I appreciate that the final question falls very much outside the officials' remit for today.
Mr. John Kinnane
The relevant relationship is with the Department of Finance rather than the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is not an issue within the scope or area that we cover.
On the indicators and the completeness or otherwise of the metrics being measured, these metrics are tied in with the statements of strategy that Departments set out. Within these statements of strategy, the Departments will look to deliver on programme for Government commitments. That is what this dialogue is about. It is only the second year that this has been published. In seeking to move this forward and further refine it, we are looking for feedback from the Oireachtas on the type of metrics that are being included, whether they can be expanded and if there are other areas at which we should look. This is something in respect of which the Committee on Budgetary Oversight can take a broader view and then the sectoral committees can examine the relevant line Departments. Ms O'Loughlin can address the question of equality budgeting and developments there.
Ms Caroline O'Loughlin
In the 2018 budgetary cycle, equality budgeting is a pilot. Due to the timing of publication, the information in the performance report only covers the first quarter. Equality budgeting is something that will evolve in the short term. In the coming months, an expert steering group will be established to guide us in terms of the next steps in the equality budgeting process. We expect that will be expanded to cover other areas in the next budgetary cycle.
Mr. John Kinnane
The other issue is that if we look at how the performance budgeting process worked, it was initially rolled out on a pilot basis in a number of Departments. The key lesson, when looking at how this was implemented in various other countries, is that the Departments must take ownership of it themselves. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is trying to drive the point that we can embed this in Departments, roll it out initially on a pilot basis and then take in more Departments in order to get full coverage.
Do the officials not wish to answer on the NTMA?
Mr. John Kinnane
This report deals with voted expenditure. The NTMA is outside the expenditure that is covered here and it is a matter for the Department of Finance. We are in the central expenditure policy area so we do not deal with the NTMA.
Is it not the case that the NTMA is accountable to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?
Mr. John Kinnane
It is the Department of Finance, not the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
I must say I find this a very useful document, at least as a starting point. There is a lot of useful information put into a very readable form and it is not too long, which will be very helpful for working out what is going on in different Departments. I know that these are sectoral things but among the interesting things that have jumped out at me is the issue of bed days lost through delayed discharges. The report says that the number in that regard is minus 10,000. The report also provides information on the number of trees planted, a matter in which I am always very interested.
Or felled.
Yes, indeed, or felled. The report also indicates whether the figures have risen or fallen. Perhaps it is for the sectoral committees to flesh out or elaborate on the metrics in order to have a net picture. However, although the report gives the figure for the new hectares of forest planted, it does not say how many trees were cut down in the same period, so one cannot see if net afforestation or forest cover has increased or declined. There is an important debate around that because while we are planting there are large numbers of trees being cut down. Similarly, with housing, the report refers to new housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancies, I think the figure was 17,000. However, I understand that over 2,000 HAP tenancies ended during the same period. The report does not say this and, as a result, there is no net figure. One might get the impression that there is an entirely forward momentum on HAP tenancies whereas there is also backward momentum. Not all metrics can allow for this but in some cases one needs the net picture. Some thought on that would be valuable.
It might not be possible to do this in all the metrics, but under each subcategory there is a total expenditure figure.
In the more detailed metrics, there are no cost figures but they might be helpful. How much did it cost to do an extra 5,000 ha, for example, in the forest? The report stated the extra 5,000 ha were planted but how much did it cost to do it? It would allow us to say that if we wanted 10,000 ha or 15,000 ha, it would cost a specific sum. It might be worth looking at. On the first page of each departmental section, it might be useful to have comparative figures for the previous year. I know capital is broken down in a chart for capital, current, pay and pension costs but it might be useful to have comparative figures from the previous year. This is not just in terms of expenditure but also in terms of staff, so we can see if there is an increase in staff in health, for example. It would be useful information.
To follow Deputy Cowen's point, as well as having numbers we need some way easily readable way of setting out targets or goals. We do not need too much information in a report like this or it would become intimidating and one would not want to read it at all. These would be the key points of announced Government strategies under a departmental heading, such as Rebuilding Ireland, for example. We should have some of the key things it was hoped to achieve in order that people could at a glance consider if the figures suggest that goals set under a strategy or in the programme for Government are being met. It would be helpful. Perhaps there could be headline issues as I know not everything can be done in a report like this. It would again be up to sectoral committees to look at these in more detail but we could have some of the key headlines in place.
The witnesses will be pleased to know I will not ask them to name the trees that were planted or anything like that.
Mr. John Kinnane
Many of those suggestions should be taken on board. For example, the format we have was driven by the fact that last year was the first in which the document was published. Over time, we need to set out trends for the report. The challenge, as the Deputy correctly said, is to try to include more meaningful information while ensuring the report is accessible. With a quick read-through, one should be able to get a very good insight as to what is being delivered.
We could consider whether it is possible, if not in individual chapters but perhaps towards the front, to deal with some of the big issues relating to programme for Government commitments. Perhaps it could be addressed in the overview section. Certainly, as we move forward we need to include more information on targets and trends. We need to do this in a way that makes the report accessible. The likelihood is the report next year will look different, given that we will have three years of information for many of the metrics. Some of the metrics this year are not directly comparable with the metrics last year and there was much work done to try to refine some of those metrics. They are all issues that are well worth addressing and we will look at them. I cannot answer about the trees.
We would like to know how many were cut down.
That calls for tree surgeon skills.
When one cuts down a tree, one is supposed to plant another one.
That does not always happen.
I thank the witnesses for the presentation. The informatics are excellent. For a Deputy or anybody to use these to inform the public of what is happening is most welcome. That said, public service performance, in addition to continuing day-to-day service for people, is also about being cognisant of how we can improve and target services that see justified demands. Whether one is a local councillor or an Oireachtas Member, there is a need not just for what Deputy Cowen mentioned about performance indicators for elements of the programme for Government but the demands made of public representatives, whether at local authority or council level, on a daily basis. We have to follow not just demand but where there is a real need for it. Somebody mentioned hospital waiting lists and we can look at the delays in the carer's allowance and the lack of money being put into disabled persons' grants. We have had debate after debate in the Dáil on the reintroduction of the motorised grant for people with a disability. That is not even to mention the demand for home help. I am just highlighting a few matters. We can all empty our political book about representations we get. There are extreme pressures because public service is about providing and improving the service for the servants we are for individuals and for the demands in our community.
Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned being able to show not just the number of jobs provided in a sector. As politicians on all sides, we demand increased services but there seems to be a clear lack of specialist services. For example, I cite speech therapy. I wonder to what degree we can employ speech therapists to meet the promises we are giving and that the Department are saying will be put in place. If we do not have the staff and cannot get them, we are kidding people about enhancing the public service. Is it possible to put such things in an enhanced report next year as it improves?
Mr. John Kinnane
With regard to the demands for increased services, as I outlined previously, this is one of the reforms being introduced on the expenditure side. The Ministers for Finance and for Public Expenditure and Reform at the 2016 budget announced the three-year expenditure review process. This was completely different from the spending reviews that would have been carried out in 2011, where the focus was on delivering expenditure reductions to meet a fiscal target. The focus now has Departments systematically looking at the money being spent on delivering services. Part of this considers the demand on services and whether they are being delivered efficiently and in the most effective way. This is a more detailed investigation through the spending review process.
For example, in 2017 the spending review looked at approximately 20 different areas right across Departments. During the course of 2018, the spending review looked at approximately 30 different areas of Government expenditure. The detail in this will be published alongside the mid-year expenditure report.
The idea is to address some of the issues. Obviously, we are measuring what has been delivered in the performance report but it becomes very difficult to measure and identify the demand on the service. A more detailed look at value for money and how effectively services are being delivered can provide that information.
We have had major problems with medical card delivery yet somebody identified a need for a speedy turnaround due to the demands placed on the service. I think the service delivered to the public has improved although not everyone may be happy with the service. Another example is passports, which are always a problem at this time of year. Every Deputy and public representative receives correspondence from people demanding that they intervene so they can get a passport. Last week, I heard the Minister say that he had brought in an additional 200 staff to try to meet the demand for passports. Surely to God, as a performance indicator, we should be able to resolve a staffing problem within the Civil Service or wherever. Earlier I mentioned the huge delays in decisions being made about whether people should be granted a carer's allowance. I acknowledge there were problems in the downturn and the number of civil and public servants was reduced. Where a demand is recognised and a real need has been identified, then we should be able to draft a plan and move people in the same way that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade can do in the passport service, even though there are still complaints about that service.
The Department wants my system to be used now as well.
Mr. John Kinnane
As Deputy Breathnach said, we have gone through a period during the downturn when the numbers in the public service were significantly reduced. Over the past four years the number of staff in the public service and Civil Service have grown, in terms of health and education, and in Departments. The human resources side of my Department is working on the whole idea of workforce planning and ensuring that the Department has the right staff and skills to meet the demands on the services that are being delivered. That is something the Department is considering in the context of Civil Service workforce planning.
I thank the witnesses for their responses and call Deputy Lisa Chambers.
I thank the departmental officials for coming here and for their presentation. In her opening statement, Ms O'Loughlin stated "The objective of this report is to create a space in the budget process for performance dialogue, focusing on results delivered from public expenditure in terms of outputs and impacts." I can see the outputs in the report but not the impacts. Let us look at the segment in the report dedicated to health. On pages 11 to 13, inclusive, there is reference, using a plus or minus symbol, to additional services, hours, money or whatever that have been provided. There is no reference to whether demographics have been considered or whether there has been an increase in the number of people requiring those services. The data do not show the impact that the extra or reduced spend has had on the service user or who has been impacted by the services.
We have been told that there has been increased expenditure on mental health services. Let us consider the figures for the child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS. If one looks at the top of page 15 one will see the first tabular statement, with the heading, "Mental Health Services". In the third column of the second row, one will see the heading "CAMHS referrals seen by Mental Health Services" and the figures show that the number of people has been reduced by 2,082 when compared with last year's figure.
I agree with Deputies Boyd Barrett and Cowen that we can use the information contained in the report. The information will allow us to probe further but it does not tell us, as a budget committee, the impact of extra expenditure or, conversely, reduced expenditure. I am interested in hearing the thoughts of the officials on how we can improve the report. What other work can the Department do to provide us with more detailed information? More information would allow us to assess whether budgetary decisions have worked and I mean in terms of putting money into different areas. We have heard from the budget office in Scotland, which has a slightly different name but which has done this work for quite some time. It advised that we need to build in time for reflection and to evaluate past performance. We need to assess the impact and effect our decisions are having. Can the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform play a role in that? Can this report be improved? Do we need to conduct a separate body of work to assess impact? It is incorrect to suggest that this report has provided any sort of analysis or information on impact.
My final point will follow on from what Deputy Cowen said about the State Claims Agency and the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA. The Department has claimed it has no involvement or connection with the NTMA. Am I correct?
Mr. John Kinnane
No, what I said is that within the central expenditure policy area, we do not deal with the NTMA. We came to talk about the public service performance report and we have not been briefed on issues relating to the NTMA or the State Claims Agency.
I take that point. Things happen that affect this House and as such we, as Deputies and Senators, are entitled to ask questions. The Secretary General of the Department is an ex officio member of the NTMA. Therefore, the officials report directly to an individual who is involved in the NTMA. Mr. Kinnane cannot say that he and his officials have not been properly briefed because this issue has dominated discourse in this House for the past couple of days. The Joint Committee on Health is currently discussing the issue. Therefore, it is fair for me to ask what connection the Department, which the officials are representing here today, has with that particular issue. I appreciate that the officials cannot provide the information right now. The report does not refer to impacts and I ask that the officials see what they can do to rectify the matter.
Witnesses who appear before the committee are invited to attend to discuss a specific brief. I wish to acknowledge that the witnesses present were invited here to discuss the public service performance review and, therefore, that is what they have been briefed on.
Mr. John Kinnane
Let me outline the key point. Over the past number of years we have developed what we call a whole-of-year budgetary process. The revised Estimates volume, REV, is now published in December of each year. That allows Oireachtas committees, during the first quarter of the year, to engage in detailed discussions with the line Departments on expenditure allocations for the current year and on the outputs that are to be delivered with those expenditure targets. Also, the context and a series of impact indicators are set out in the REV. There is a series of outputs for each programme within each Department but there is also a series of impact indicators that are designed to measure whether the programme has delivered the impact for citizens.
Due to the change in the budgetary timetable we now have the following issue. If we did not have the public service performance report, the earliest time that the output information would have been published for each Department would have been in the REV in December. Obviously that is far too late for a timely consideration of the output and the performance of Departments. An opportunity for meaningful dialogue has now been created by publishing the information at the end of April because the committees, after giving detailed consideration to the Estimates and targets for this year, now have an opportunity to look back and assess what happened in the past year. The targets for each Department will have been set out in the REV last year. The public service performance report allows the committees to have a detailed discussion and compare performance with the targets.
On a broader level within the budgetary process, the mid-year expenditure report sets out the baseline for expenditure in advance of the budget. Tied into the publication of the mid-year expenditure report is the spending review process. From January of this year, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has carried out a detailed analysis of large areas of expenditure across all Departments with a view to making the information available during the summer in advance of the budget, and in advance of the budgetary decisions being made.
The performance report does not exist in isolation. It is one of a number of measures in place to assist all stakeholders and, in particular, the Oireachtas in considering departmental performance and budgetary options for subsequent years, a key element of which is an examination of the effectiveness of the current spend of over €61 billion across all Departments and the impact and efficiency of service delivery. The performance report assists this process but on its own does not provide the information. It must be viewed alongside the spending review, the revised Estimates volume and the mid-term expenditure report.
I thank Mr. Kinnane.
I appreciate the presentation. I may have got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning such that the witnesses should take what I am about to say with that caveat. I love the Irish Civil Service. If I was advising my children on their career options, I would tell them to into the public service or the Civil Service because young people can avail of major opportunities and learn a great deal by doing so.
On the question of how I would grade this report in terms of feedback, I could not even give it a D. To be honest, I would give it an F in terms of what it does for me in providing feedback on public service performance. There is interesting material in this report. I hear from a lot of civil servants that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has done particularly well in the management of the crisis in terms of its own budget expenditure. I note that pay expenditure in that Department has increased by 25% in the past five years while one of the Departments in which I am interested, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, has remained static in that time. I note that the average pay for civil servants in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is €49,000, whereas in the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment it is €39,000. The same applies in respect of the Department of Finance. It is a qualitative assessment of the characteristics of our public service that the real power lies within the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and I note that.
This review does not tell me how we are moving from relying on generalists to specialists, which is a strategic issue in terms of our thinking on how our public service develops. I would like to know the background of the type of people we are taking into the public service and the staff turnover within Departments, including those that have a high staff turnover and those with a low staff turnover. This report does not tell me any of this type of qualitative information. It provides only the bare figures in terms of the pay and pensions bill but I would like more qualitative information on our civil servants. For example, I would like to know how many are coming in from other organisations, how many are leaving to go to other organisations, the average length of time staff remain in Departments and so on.
There is much discussion around disclosure in the area of health. As a matter of principle, all data relating to the public service should be publicly available at the touch of a button. If there are road works taking place in a particular area, for example, I would like to be able to quickly find out, via the Internet, the name of the contractor, when the contract was written and so on. We should be disclosing everything we do unless we are restricted from doing so on foot of data protection or security reasons. All of the material and figures in this report should, by definition, be available in order that we can assess it, but that is not the case.
I will explain why I give this report an F grade. I am interested in a number of areas covered in the report. In respect of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, for example, the report states, in the context of North-South co-operation, that the number of organisations supported by the Ulster-Scots Agency is up by 95 to 374. Everyone knows that North-South co-operation is in dire straits and that this data tells us nothing. I have real concerns about the state of the Irish language. I hear regularly from people in the Gaeltacht that the language is dying. There are no young children speaking Irish but one gets no sense of this from the data provided in the report. According to the information it contains, attendance at clubanna óige is up by 71 to 1,300. What does this mean in the real world where the Gaeltacht areas are dying?
On heritage, I read a brilliant article yesterday written by Pádraic Fogarty of the Irish Wildlife Trust. It is a damning indictment of the destruction of our environment that is currently taking place, with widespread loss of species and destruction of habitats. The latter has been going on for a long time but is now reaching a critical point. I get no sense of that from the report in terms of the data it provides regarding payments towards cessation of turf cutting on designated sites and so on. What Deputy Lisa Chambers said is true. What is the impact of what is happening? This is difficult to assess because some of the issues, including the health or otherwise of our Gaeltacht, are long term. One cannot apportion success or failures in this regard to public service performance but these are the metrics by which we should be testing.
EUROSTAT published another major report yesterday. The report in question shows that Ireland is the worst when it comes to the generation of plastic waste. We produce an average of 61 kg each in plastic waste every year, which is twice the European average and 10 kg per person above the next worst country. There is none of that information in this report. I would be ambitious and say that if we are interested in carrying out performance reviews, then the report should refer to international comparisons - including in respect of where we stand in European league tables - and five, ten, 20 and 50-year trend diagrams and analysis. A mere tabular listing of how many organisations are supported by the Ulster-Scots Agency, which is the quality of a lot of this material, does not tell me anything.
It is definitely the case that the Deputy got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Mr. John Kinnane
The key point is that this report is not viewed in isolation. It is one of a number of reforms that have been implemented with a view to driving the focus on performance, outputs and the effectiveness with which public services are being delivered. The Deputy asked what type of civil servants are being recruited. Over the last number of years a number of staff were recruited to the Irish Government Economics and Evaluation Service, IGEES, to assist in embedding an evaluation culture in Departments in order that we can constantly assess what is being delivered and whether it is effective and having an impact. This performance report, grade F or not, is part of the effort to ensure that the focus is not only on the amount of money that is being spent but on whether it is delivering and having an impact for citizens. This report is a snapshot of the process. The spending review examines that process in more detail with a view to looking at all spending across a three-year period. This is a rolling cycle and such it is embedded within the budget process. Likewise, all Departments are involved in this process; it is not just the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform doing the analysis. All Departments are involved in finding and analysing the data in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery.
It is clear from members' contributions that they believe this is a start. From our point of view, it is a good start. We will develop this further as we gather more trend information and on the basis of feedback which we receive from Oireachtas committees and other stakeholders on how it can be improved, including on whether there are other indicators that should be measured and reported on by Departments. This is about trying to ensure that the culture of evaluating the effectiveness and impact of public expenditure is embedded across all Departments.
May I speak briefly?
As one more Deputy is waiting to speak, I ask Deputy Eamon Ryan to be very brief.
I would like the officials to be more ambitious and more wide-ranging. They should be measuring what we have stopped doing as well as what we have started. They should review the strategic decisions to actually change expenditure. That is just one example. I am asking them to come back with much more creative, imaginative details and not just a statistical checklist for each Department. They should be creative and ambitious in their thinking.
Everyone will be glad to know I got out of bed on the right side this morning, as I do every day. My children are learning Irish and they are young. I do not expect to see those kinds of statistics in a document like this. However, the document allows decision makers to take into account what results are to be achieved by expenditure. In that respect this document is very transparent and easy to read.
The intention behind this document is to help sectoral committees that have very little time. For example, Deputy Cowen is a former member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government which sometimes meets twice or three times a week. On occasion, that committee has very limited time to focus on particular areas. The report facilitates delving down into figures far quicker than was previously possible . It also demonstrates the overlap between different Departments of which we might not have been aware prior to now. I am very familiar with the format. It is very easy to read.
It is worth looking at impacts. We are talking about what impact the Government is having or the country is having. It is very clearly lays out what has been delivered in 2017. We can drill down into those figures when we go into our sectoral committees. I do not expect the witnesses to come in and talk about climate action, housing, planning, local government or transport. I do not expect Department of Public Expenditure and Reform officials to have those detailed figures that I need. However, what is presented here is a very good overview of each Department.
Deputy Eamon Ryan spoke about the protection of our coastal areas. We have strategic policies such as Project Ireland 2040 to protect our coastal areas, which are of immense benefit to the country. The committee has already completed pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill on plastic microbeads. I do not expect Department of Public Expenditure and Reform officials to come in and have details of those policies with them. However, as Oireachtas Members, we need to challenge what is being spent in those areas. Is it enough? Is it too much? Are we getting value for money? That is our role.
Sadly, Deputy Boyd Barrett has left. As I said to him before he departed, I was delighted to hear him having such an interest in tree planting. Ten or 12 years we were councillors together. One member wanted every tree in the constituency to be named. He will be glad to hear that 3,000 mature trees have been or are in the process of being planted in Cherrywood on a site of 163 acres. I cannot give the details of what is being planted throughout the country. However, I can give him a snapshot of what is happening in his area.
It is important not to take out of context some of the numbers presented here. Given my area of interest, it is great to see the housing figures provided. We are about to start either the tender process or the capital appraisal process relating to 846 sites throughout the country on which more than 13,000 social homes will be delivered. They will be delivered this year, next year and in subsequent years. It is not possible to get into that detail on one page in this document. However, I certainly can through my committee. We can put those pertinent figures to the officials in those Departments.
I very much welcome the document, which gives a great overview of the various Departments. It gives great information that can be benchmarked off the previous or following years. It is very easy to read and I love the detail it offers. I also love the monthly economic bulletin the Department of Finance provides. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform gives a lot of detail. I also get a lot of detail from the Department I am interested in, the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. We are never short on such detail. When it is all out in the open, people can make their own decisions on whether the impacts we are having are good or bad, and they are to be challenged. That is the role we, as Oireachtas Members, play.
I do not have any questions for the witnesses. I thank them for the document, which contains the kind of detail that I like and that affords me the opportunity to delve further into details relating to particular Departments in a way in which I might not have done previously. I thank the witnesses for that.
The witnesses are getting off lightly and do not need to respond to Deputy Bailey. That concludes today's session. We are almost bang on time. I thank the witnesses for interacting with the committee. Many very interesting ideas have been raised. We will write to the Department with some of the committee's ideas on the report structure and ways of reporting as an input into developing the report for future years.
I echo some of the comments made by previous speakers. The report is very good but more can be done, particularly in the forecasting of trends across different years and being able to look back and forward to really get an idea of where we are going. Much can be achieved in doing that.
The select committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 May 2018.