Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the rules in place in his Department governing the acceptance of hospitality by Ministers from State agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25636/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Codes of Conduct.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the rules governing the receipt of hospitality by Ministers or Ministers of State from State agencies or State bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32520/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The code of conduct for officeholders, published by the Standards in Public Office Commission, sets out among other things a framework for acceptance of hospitality. Briefly, the code provides that officeholders should not accept offers of hospitality where to do so would, or might appear to, place them under an obligation. The code also provides that officeholders should not accept offers to meet the costs of travel facilities and-or commercial accommodation in connection with official activities where such offers are made by private citizens or private enterprises but that discretion may be used where an officeholder is the official guest of another Government or official body or of a not-for-profit representative organisation or the like.
For obvious reasons, restrictions in the code of conduct for officeholders do not apply to any offer or supply of property or a service made in the course of and for the purpose of performance of duties of an officeholder.
The Department of Finance's code of practice for the governance of State bodies, which was recently updated and re-issued on 15 June, provides a framework for the application of best practice in corporate governance by both commercial and non-commercial State bodies. The code lays down that all State bodies should have written codes of business conduct for their directors and employees and makes clear that such a code should address as a fundamental issue of principle avoidance of giving or receiving corporate gifts, hospitality, preferential treatment or benefits which may affect or appear to affect the ability of a donor or the recipient to make independent judgment on business transactions.
The code of practice reminds directors and employees of State bodies that they should be guided by the principles set out in the code in meeting their responsibilities to ensure that all their activities, whether covered specifically or otherwise in the code, meet the highest standards of corporate governance.
In certain circumstances, receipt of hospitality could constitute a gift. If a Minister were to receive a gift worth more than €650 from a State agency, it would be deemed to be a gift given by virtue of office and would have to be surrendered to the State. It would also have to be declared in the Minister's annual statement of registerable interests.
I did not catch all of the Taoiseach's reply. FÁS, which was a case in point, has received massive coverage in recent months and for good reason. There was clearly a lack of oversight and judgment as to what was going on in that organisation. I referred yesterday to the comments by the Taoiseach about the former chief executive and noted that the Tánaiste appeared to know very little about what was going on in FÁS. In view of the very changed circumstances in which we find ourselves in regard to the performance of public duties by Ministers and agencies associated with the State, what changes in oversight does the Government propose to introduce to ensure these kinds of excesses cannot happen again?
The Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007 went through the Seanad on 4 July 2007 — two years ago — and is still on the Order Paper for the Dáil. As the Taoiseach is aware, its main provision is to increase the value of gifts that Ministers and parliamentarians can receive. Instead of taking the suggestions made by the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Ethics in Public Office (Amendment) Bill 2007, published by the Department of Finance, which was under the stewardship of the Taoiseach at the time, focused entirely on the provision of gifts to Ministers and parliamentary officeholders. The legislation raised the value of gifts which had to be declared to the Standards in Public Office Commission for a declaration that the gift would be unlikely to influence the recipient in the performance of his or her duties from, I understand, €650 to €2,000.
That is a considerable purchase fee for a gift or item for an officeholder or whatever Minister might be involved. In view of the circumstances we now find ourselves in, is it proposed to reduce that limit and have only token gifts or awards made to Ministers?
I am sure some of those on the other side have attics filled with bog deal, glass bowls and mirrors of all descriptions which were awarded to Ministers such as the Minister, Deputy Cullen, when they cut tapes here and there. All I am asking is for the situation to be regularised. I am sure the Minister does not want to do a round of ten different hotels and have a little plaque given to him. He would be far better off going off, saying his piece and saying he does not want anything.
Do not be so pathetic.
He does not want anything when——
The Deputy is trivialising the situation.
——he does his duties. I am trying to help the Minister.
Please, Minister.
The man beside him put through a Bill that raised the limit of gifts that can be given to a Minister from €650 to €2,000. One could go to any gift shop down town and buy a substantial gift for €2,000. The value of such gifts, which might influence a Minister in the performance of his or her duties, must be between €650 and €2,000. What oversight regulations will be changed and put in place and is it proposed to go along with this Bill, which raises the limit from €650 to €2,000? It went through the Seanad two years ago and is still on the Dáil Order Paper. It is in the Taoiseach's interest to clarify this.
In regard to the matter the Deputy raised, I understand that Bill has gone through all Stages in the Seanad. As for when it will be debated, it will be a matter for the Whips to make arrangements in due course.
It was two years ago.
I am answering the question. It is a matter for the Whips to deal with.
If the Taoiseach wants to debate it he should tell the Chief Whip and he will do it for him.
The position is that it is a matter for the Whips and the Minister for Finance as to when it will be taken. Regarding the whole question of thresholds and limits, the threshold of €650 had not been increased since 1995. The idea was to make sure that it would be dealt with in a way that did not involve the commission in the valuation of every gift that would be obtained. On the question of amendments and what people want to do regarding amendments on the size of these gifts, it is a matter which can be debated in the House. It is not an issue which I am holding fast on.
The Taoiseach should send out an instruction to his Ministers and Ministers of State to be very careful about what they receive as gifts for duties they perform in respect of their Departments. The Taoiseach is probably aware of one former Minister who had to have the attic in his house strengthened to hold all the gifts which were awarded to him over the years. I am sure he knows the person of whom I am speaking. I am making the point that it is in the interests of all members of the Cabinet and Ministers of State that the situation be regularised, because if the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, receives a crystal globe for something he does in County Leitrim, what is it worth? He has to declare it.
He should instruct the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, to bring the Bill before the House. He is the Government Chief Whip. I heard him speak eloquently on the radio the other night, when he said his main priority was to get the legislative list right. He gave an eloquent description of what the Government has to do. I suggest the Taoiseach bring this Bill, which was debated in the Seanad two years ago, before the House and let us amend it to a point where no Minister or Minister of State can ever be accused in any circumstances, under the declaration of this Bill, of being put on the spot. I am not suggesting anybody is.
The Bill does not do that. Legislation is already in place which deals with gifts to Ministers in the performance of their duties. That is covered. This relates to the question of people who, when they are not in the public performance of their duties, receive gifts from friends or associated people. It covers a much wider and different situation than the public performance of duties. The public performance of duties issue is not changed by this Bill. It is important to note that a particular issue arose in regard to that legislation and we have to deal with it.
Remember when the daggers were presented.
Extravagance and the waste of taxpayers' money is never acceptable. Does the Taoiseach agree that in the current economic climate, where people are losing their jobs and people's incomes are under pressure and they are finding it hard to make ends meet, that the kind of lavish expenditure we have now become aware was going on over a number of years is particularly unacceptable? Would he agree that the era of the €900 hotel room must now be a thing of the past and that it is necessary to convey to the public that that day is over? One way of doing that would be progressing the new ethics Bill which has been lying around for three years? On 10 October 2006 the then Minister, Deputy McDowell, told the media that the new ethics Bill was to be brought before the Oireachtas as a matter of urgency. It came before the Seanad but was not brought before this House.
The Taoiseach makes it sound as if the reason it has not come before the House is due to a scheduling difficulty between the Whips. Clearly, a political decision has been taken that this Bill will not be progressed. I have never seen a Bill lying around as long as this one. I agree with Deputy Kenny on the raising of the thresholds, which is something I do not agree with. It would provide an opportunity for the House to address some of these issues in a legislative way and it should be brought before the House as soon as possible.
The issue has been dealt with through the Houses of the Oireachtas and has not been proceeded with. When it will be taken is a matter for the Whips and the Minister for Finance. The issue of what thresholds would apply now is a matter for decision on Committee Stage. The idea behind it was that there was a gap in the situation regarding people who provide gifts who were friends of an officeholder but did not do so in the context of the performance of duties. This Bill was provided to fill those gaps. That was the idea behind it, as I recall.
On the more general and important point, it is very important that whatever arrangements for officeholders which have been long-standing under successive Administrations be reviewed in the context of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I do not think anybody in the House would suggest otherwise. The Minister for Finance, in June or July, provided a circular on updated guidelines on travel and what arrangements are put in place. It takes account of how air tickets can be booked at the best possible cost for the taxpayer. These developments took place when guidelines on the old arrangements had not been sufficiently updated. That is being done.
In every aspect of what we do we have to be clear and transparent and I am in favour of transparency, as is the Government. We are anxious to proceed. As the Deputy knows, the commission has had some proposals. The Minister for Finance has a view regarding the verification of what was proposed. I am sure it was proposed in good faith. He has taken a view that there are further considerations to be given to that to improve the verification procedure rather than the composite block grant proposal.
I heard a suggestion this morning that he was in some way blocking this progress. In fact, he is seeking to ensure that we meet the standards the public will expect, in terms of verification of these matters. He is advancing it. While everyone puts forward proposals in good faith, whether it is members of the commission or whatever, it should not then be portrayed as if there is a blocking mechanism on the Government side. The Government side is trying to ensure that we meet the requirements the public would expect in these matters, even beyond what has already been proposed. It is only fair to say that. Let us have that discussion and debate and bring it to a conclusion. We would like to bring it to a conclusion quickly.
The Taoiseach is mixing up two areas of expenditure. As I understand it, the recommendations made by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to the Minister for Finance relate to the expenses of Members of the House in their capacity as Members of the House. I repeat I am disappointed the Minister has not approved the package that was recommended to him some time ago. As I understand it, the Minister was given the legislative authority to do so in legislation that was passed by the Oireachtas. The expenditure incurred by officeholders — Ministers and Ministers of State — is a separate matter. It is striking that Ministers and Ministers of State are always at the bottom of the league tables of expenses that are published periodically in newspapers, etc. They are at the bottom for the very good reason that their expenses do not go through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Will the Taoiseach agree, in the interests of transparency and so that everybody can see what is going on, to provide that details of the expenses incurred by officeholders and associated with such offices are made available in the same way as the expenses of Members of the Oireachtas are made public?
When Deputy Gilmore raised his first matter, he expressed his disappointment at the failure of the Minister for Finance to approve a proposal that had been made. I remind him that the Minister has expressed his views on whether the proposal meets the transparency requirements he considers necessary in this case. The suggestion being made — that the Minister's failure to approve the proposal meant in some way that he was indifferent to this issue, that he was lax on the issue, or that he did not share the high standards being proposed by others in this regard — is not true, not fair, not just and not right.
No one has suggested that.
We will leave it at that. Although it was suggested that the Minister was blocking an improvement, the truth is that he wanted to advance it beyond what has been suggested. That is the first point. Given that the Minister's position was not being reflected in full, it is only fair to speak in his defence. The second point relates to the question of ministerial expenses. As I have said, mechanisms like the Freedom of Information Acts are being used to provide information. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to bolster public confidence in that respect. It has been mentioned that when certain figures are provided, it is important to explain the context in which officeholders incur their expenses.
True.
When figures are provided, it needs to be explained that legitimate or valid expenses are required to do the job.
That is fine.
If it is done otherwise, the complaint that is made at the moment will be made in reverse. The problem is that all of these matters are sometimes portrayed in a manner that is unfair on everybody. It is important for the public to understand that the moneys spent by those who act on behalf of taxpayers are accounted for in a transparent manner. I am totally in favour of such a system. If people are to know what it is about, it needs to be explained rather than simply thrown out there. As Deputy Gilmore said, people tend to think that those who are paid larger expenses enjoy lavish lifestyles. The reality is that those who do not have similar responsibilities do not incur similar expenses.
We are aware of how public funding was abused by the board of FÁS. For example, some Ministers availed of expensive junkets to Florida. There needs to be a full debate in the Dáil on the issue of ministerial accountability. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the Whips that such a debate will be arranged at some stage? We need to deal with the point the Taoiseach has made about explaining the context in which expenses are paid. Why did three Ministers and two Ministers of State travel to Florida for ceremonies associated with the FÁS science challenge project, which has an annual budget of €1.5 million, over a period of less than three years between 2004 and 2007? Will the Taoiseach admit that the trips were simply junkets? The Cabinet handbook states:
Where the nature of a visit requires that a Minister be accompanied by his/her spouse/partner, he/she should consult the Taoiseach in advance on the matter. Expenses in respect of a spouse/partner will not be charged to public funds in any particular case unless the Taoiseach is satisfied that, in the circumstances, this is warranted.
Is this rule adhered to? Does the Taoiseach routinely sign off on trips by spouses or partners? Can he estimate how many such trips were warranted since 2007? How does he determine whether expenses for spouses or partners are warranted?
Questions about individuals are more appropriately focused on line Ministers. I remind the House that this issue will be debated during Private Members' time this evening. I ask the Taoiseach to respond on the general issue raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
I thank the Chair. In the absence of advance notice, I cannot answer specific questions that would be best addressed to individual Ministers. Officeholders can have representational roles in respect of State agencies, in addition to their departmental responsibilities. One may be required to promote the interests of the agencies under one's aegis. It should be acknowledged that the promotion of what such organisations are doing or seeking to do can be a valid exercise of one's responsibilities. I cannot go into the specific details. The Tánaiste undertook to investigate this matter on foot of controversies about travel interests that arose last November. I understand that the programme mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh was discontinued on the advice of the Tánaiste. She insisted that it be discontinued as she did not believe it was sufficiently warranted in the circumstances in which the organisation found itself at that time. That is my recollection of the situation. Spouses can have a representational role from time to time. For example, it is sometimes regarded as appropriate for the accompanying Minister on a presidential visit to be accompanied by his or her spouse. There may be other instances in which it is deemed that the right thing to do, in the circumstances that are arising, is to envisage an itinerary for a ministerial spouse. The guidelines, by definition, require discretion. One cannot be absolutely rigid on this; instead, one makes a decision on the basis of the relevant circumstances. I can only answer the Deputy's question about these arrangements with reference to my experience since I first held this office. Since I took office, I understand there may have been two or three occasions on which that was required.
Can I ask the Taoiseach about the incurring of expenses? As an inevitable result of the development of devolved bodies and organisations, which has been a strong feature of public administration in Ireland over the last 20 years, many Ministers now carry out official functions and visits through such bodies and organisations. As semi-State bodies and organisations are not accountable to the Dáil in the same direct way as a Department of State, there is enormous scope for what some people might consider to be the hiding of expenditure. In general, journalists do not become aware of such expenditure unless they use the freedom of information provisions. I suggest, in the interests of restoring public confidence, that officeholders and senior executives in public service Departments, as well as the devolved bodies and semi-State companies, etc., should be required to publish on a quarterly basis a summary of the expenses they have incurred in respect of matters like entertainment and travel. I suspect that the expenses claimed within most bodies are relatively modest. I hope the cases of over-the-top and extravagant expenses are exceptions.
A practice has developed regarding entertainment budgets of people making extensive use of credit cards. Would it not be wise to introduce a daily limit on credit card spending for senior departmental officials, including the private secretaries who administer ministerial travel and entertainment budgets? That would be a practical way of reining in spending and, where a particular entertainment or travel expense is liable to be high, ensuring that thought is given to whether the amount involved is excessive.
The Department of Finance reviewed the code of practice for the governance of State bodies and issued a revised and updated code on 15 June to include revised guidelines on travel policy for Departments and State bodies which take due account of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts. I understand a further report on FÁS is due to be issued in respect of the internal audits. The conclusions drawn from that report will inform the committee's considerations and the Department of Finance in terms of the lessons to be learned.
Officeholders also have to abide by a code of conduct. Everyone is mindful that taxpayers' money should be spent in the most economic and fair manner possible and that extravagance should be avoided. Strong involvement is sometimes advocated in regard to arrangements but those who have had the privilege of holding office, including Deputy Burton, will be aware that arrangements are put in place for the conduct of work and it is not a question of Ministers seeking to augment itineraries. The itineraries are set out and Ministers do their work in the hope and expectation that everything is in order. Clearly, these traditional arrangements have to be reviewed in light of the context in which we are now operating because we want to maintain the trust and confidence of the people we govern and the taxpayers and electorate we represent.
There is on occasion an inclination to suggest that a particular issue or individual was involved when perhaps it is a matter of reviewing a systemic practice across the board. Too often, debate concerns the person rather than the issue. We need to be mindful of that because it is not in our interest to follow practices which are not consistent with the requirements of the country's current situation or which undermine confidence in the institutions in which we participate. Issues can be validly raised and debated but we need to avoid giving an incorrect or unfair impression. At the same time, the system has to respond in an appropriate and proportionate way to the fact that we are in different circumstances. That needs to be reflected in everything we do. This is not the view of any particular section of this House but is shared by all Deputies.
Departmental Expenditure.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the level of expenditure by his Department during the first half of 2009; the way in which it compares with the forecast in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25637/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the level of expenditure by his Department in the first six months of 2009; if it is consistent with the figures provided in his Department’s estimate for 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27242/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the expenditure of his Department from January to June 2009 as compared to the projections in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27254/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the level of expenditure by his Department during the first half of 2009; the way this compares with the forecast in the Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30641/09]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
Expenditure by my Department from January to the end of June 2009 was €11.574 million compared to a total Estimates provision for the year of €32.686 million. While fluctuations in spending occur from month to month and some expenditures do not fall due until the end of the year, I am satisfied that overall spending by my Department for 2009 will remain within the agreed Revised Estimates for the year.
I understand the Department of the Taoiseach employs 259 staff. The Department of Finance has taken responsibility for economic affairs, social partnership is all but on its last legs and Northern Ireland and European affairs are no longer dealt with by the Department of the Taoiseach. In view of the outsourcing of these activities, have staff been moved from the Department of the Taoiseach to other Departments?
The role of the Department of Finance does not rule out the need for us to assign people to these areas because we have co-ordinating, leadership and other responsibilities. I do not accept the contention that the social partnership process has been abandoned. It is an important function in terms of providing a structure within which relationships and interests can be negotiated. It is wrong to regard a process which has helped to provide stability, and which will continue to do so in the future, as the fall guy for all our problems. Difficult issues have to be negotiated in any event and the process is wider than the traditional area of pay and conditions for public servants. Negotiations on wider inputs into policy and positions are in line with promoting good democratic practice and they should continue. The fact that we cannot guarantee unanimity does not undermine the process. The preferred outcome of discussions is agreement, however. The references made in certain quarters are rather denigratory in that regard.
In regard to economic and other affairs, the Department of the Taoiseach is relatively small in terms of personnel and costs given the level of responsibility assigned to it. While we continue to work with other Departments on controlling the cost of the public service, we also undertake important functions which require the input of competent and adequate personnel.
Why was the programme manager for the Minister for Health and Children paid by the Department of the Taoiseach and given the increased remit of special adviser with responsibility for health and children? Why is that necessary given that the Taoiseach is reviewing pay levels within his Department?
What is the status of the communications unit? Does it remain within the Department and how many people work in it? Do they continue to circulate information to Ministers on a daily basis?
I have answered questions on the communications unit ad nauseam. They are the same answers to the same questions.
I know. If the man sitting behind the Taoiseach reformed the system we would not have these problems.
I have explained the role of the communications unit. A conspiracy theory is constantly propounded by Deputy Kenny's side of the House regarding the unit. He seems to have an obsession with it. He continues to ask questions about it and I continue to give him the answers. If that is how he wants to use Question Time, that is fine.
The questions we can ask are very limited.
I have always indicated that the official referred to by the Deputy is paid by my Department because of the work done in terms of co-ordinating between the Department of Health and Children and my office.
I recall that when we were dealing with these questions in February the Taoiseach stated that Ministers and Ministers of State would seek to reduce the costs of their own offices by 10% and that if it was necessary as part of that process to redeploy staff into the mainstream Departments or to other Departments, that would be proceeded with. Has there been any redeployment of staff out of ministerial offices in the Department of the Taoiseach into the main Department since February last?
Second, as this deals with the Taoiseach's Estimate, there is one particular item that I want to ask him about, that is, the allocation for the Moriarty tribunal, which is being increased from €4 million to €7.5 million this year. Can he indicate when that tribunal will conclude its work and when we are likely to see a report, and can he indicate what further cost will be incurred by that tribunal?
I do not have the specific up-to-date supplementary on the Moriarty tribunal. As I recall, the report is expected by the end of this year or early in the new year. As the Deputy will be aware, there was a number of developments during the course of this year in terms of recalling people for further questioning or whatever investigation goes on there in terms of the method that he uses, but I understand it should report by the end of this year.
On the question of the reductions in the Departments, as I recall those have been achieved in my Department without the change in staff, but we have achieved the savings.
In a reply to a question last month the Taoiseach stated that the planned expenditure levels for his Department will be considered as part of the budgetary process for 2010. He stated that it would include consideration of the proposals of the McCarthy report, for instance. What is the process for such consideration of that report in his Department? Is the Department of Finance anchoring that process? Is the Department of the Taoiseach or any other Department in dialogue with the Department of Finance regarding those proposals? These are the proposals contained in a report which caused consternation throughout the country, especially in most disadvantaged areas because it proposed savage and illogical cuts in health, education, social welfare and a range of services such as CDPs and family resource centres. What role will Members of the House have in such consideration of that report in the context of planned expenditure levels in his Department in the next few months but, in particular, for next year?
On the budgetary process, my Department will co-operate with the Department of Finance in identifying savings in my Department that are commensurate to what is required overall from Government. That is a role the Department of the Taoiseach must play the same as every other Department in obtaining the savings on an agreed basis, either by adopting any recommendations of the McCarthy report in respect of activities in my Department specifically or by obtaining equivalent savings in other ways as suggested by the Department itself. That is a continuing process in the budget.
Departmental Bodies.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the terms of reference of the recently established Innovation Taskforce to support the development of the smart economy; when he expects that the task force will report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27239/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the functions, programme of work and membership of the Innovation Taskforce which he established on 29 June 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27251/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date by the task force on innovation; when he expects to receive the final report of the task force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30661/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the role and remit of the Innovation Taskforce; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33521/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
I appointed the Innovation Taskforce on 29 June last. The task force has been asked, in the context of the Government's framework for sustainable economic renewal, Building Ireland's Smart Economy, and the strategy for science, technology and innovation, to: examine options to increase levels of innovation and the rates of commercialisation of research and development on a national basis with a view to accelerating the growth and scale-up of indigenous enterprise and to attract new knowledge-intensive direct investment; bring forward proposals for enhancing the linkages between institutions, agencies and organisations in the public and private sectors to ensure a cohesive innovation and commercialisation ecosystem; and identify any specific policy measures which might be necessary to support the concept of Ireland as an international innovation development hub including in the areas of legislation, educational policy, intellectual property arrangements, venture capital and immigration policy.
The task force members have a wide range of expertise and include individuals with global experience in international companies and entrepreneurs who have recently established and grown successful start-up companies. There is also representation from the higher education sector and senior representatives from a number of Departments and agencies. A full list of members is being circulated with this reply.
The task force has established four working groups focusing on more specific aspects of its terms of reference. It has also undertaken a public consultation process giving groups and individuals the opportunity to provide relevant views or submissions for consideration. The closing date for submissions was 18 September and approximately 100 have been received.
The next meeting of the task force is on 30 October and it is expected that the task force will report early in the new year.
Membership of the Innovation Taskforce
Mr. Dermot McCarthy (Chair), Secretary General, Department of the Taoiseach
Mr. Lionel Alexander, VP and GM, Hewlett Packard (Manufacturing) Ltd.
Professor Don Barry, President, University of Limerick
Dr. Hugh Brady, President, University College Dublin
Mr. Damien Callaghan, Investment Director, Intel Capital
Mr. Michael Carmody, President, Institute of Technology, Tralee
Dr. Steven Collins, Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Kore Virtual Machines
Mr. Ned Costello, Chief Executive, Irish Universities Association
Professor Frank Gannon, Director General, Science Foundation Ireland
Mr. Seán Gorman, Secretary General, Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment
Mr. Joe Harford , Chair of the High Level Action Group on Green Enterprise
Dr. John Hegarty, Provost, Trinity College Dublin
Dr. Chris Horn, Co-founder & former Chief Executive Officer Iona Technologies
Dr. Brian Kelly, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Celtic Catalysts
Mr. Michael Kelly, Chairman, Higher Education Authority
Dr. Burton Lee, Stanford University School of Engineering,
Mr. John Lynch, Chief Executive Officer, Merrion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Ms Tara MacMahon, IP Lawyer
Mr. Dan MacSweeney, Chief Executive Officer, Carbery
Ms Brigid McManus, Secretary General, Dept. of Education and Science
Mr. Bryan Mohally, VP Supply Chain Operations Europe, Johnson & Johnson
Mr. Jim O'Brien, Second Secretary, Department of Finance
Mr. Mark O'Donovan, Director, Raglan Capital
Mr. Barry O'Leary, Chief Executive Officer, IDA Ireland
Mr. Barry O'Sullivan, Senior Vice-President, Cisco Systems
Dr. Paul Roben, President Celtic Consulting
Mr. Frank Ryan, Chief Executive, Enterprise Ireland
Ms Anna Scally, Partner, KPMG
I was struck by the comments and contributions made at the event in Farmleigh recently and the emphasis put by many of the attending business leaders on the need for Ireland to do more in the area of innovation and research, and therefore this work is important.
The Taoiseach stated that he expected the group would report by beginning of next year, and I presume its report will be published. Has he any indication of the areas at which the task force is looking and could he outline for the House the four areas on which the working groups are working, which would obviously give us some idea of the topics and the agenda items they are addressing?
I can get for the Deputy the full details of how they have divided up their work. They are looking at the question of innovation, research and development, how one interacts with the education system and how one can do all of that in terms of culture and tourism as well.
Will the task force be mindful of the problems which were associated with the Media Lab debacle, for instance, the problems which arose when the State tried to encourage the likes of Media Lab to Ireland. In the area where Media Lab located, the rest of the Digital Hub project is highly successful and has managed to attract quite a number of businesses. Would the Taoiseach encourage the innovation taskforce to look at that model but also to address the problems and failures that they have encountered in terms of not having enough space to attract to the area more small indigenous businesses, which are developing innovation and which have been highly successful in terms of the smart economy?
It is important to point out that we have learned lessons as we have sought to address this area. Unfortunately, ten or 15 years ago we were providing little or no money into this area. It is now a significant part of investment. On the question of Science Foundation Ireland being set up, I note how highly credible is the good peer review that goes on there and how well it is regarded. All of the PRTLI investment has been relatively recent, in the past decade or decade and a half. This innovation is now about how we commercialise research and development and how we assist start-up companies because it is only those companies who can move forward, innovate and reposition themselves which will be able to be in business. These might be different businesses than what they were originally when they were founded.
Adding value and providing greater productivity through innovation is the means by which we can effect recovery in many respects. That is not simply about science laboratories and PhDs; it is about the culture of innovation right across the economy and the need for everybody, in whatever work they do and however mundane the service they provide, to look at how we deliver service and how we can do so in a more streamlined, effective and efficient way. It is as important an agenda for the public service as it is for the private sector. In fact, it is a hugely important agenda and the transforming public services project is about trying to inculcate that culture of innovation constantly as a matter of course, moving beyond organisational boundaries and getting people to co-ordinate and work together. That is what innovation is about. It is about doing things better and more efficiently and getting greater productivity for the amount of resources being applied. There may be cases in which initiatives fail or are not as successful as we had hoped. That is the nature of risk-taking. There is no guarantee of success for every initiative that seeks to develop innovation or technology. Some technology companies fail; some prosper and become multinationals. That is the nature of the risk. We must ensure we manage risk in the context of using public moneys but we must also be prepared to take a chance in certain areas in an effort to achieve success and contribute to good outcomes.
I opened a conference on wind energy in Galway on Thursday last, the day before the referendum. There were 300 people there, including investors, innovators and people with real drive. The analysis given at the conference was that this country has some of the best locations in the world in terms of mean wind speeds, which is beneficial for wind energy. I support the concept of a task force on innovation, which is interesting and good. If we are to develop renewable energy sources such as wind, pumped storage, waves or tides, we must first deal with the grid. There is no point in trying to do this on a piece-by-piece basis in various parts of the country. It is a real problem for everybody.
If we aspire to putting in infrastructure and capacity all over the country as a result of the deliberations of the task force on innovation, this cannot happen unless we deal with the grid. Has the task force taken this into account in respect of the locations it proposes for particular types of innovation? There is no reason this country should not be a world centre in the development of wind energy. As has been pointed out by others, we could be exporting energy in a relatively short time if we get it right. However, this cannot happen, irrespective of the good work the innovation task force may do or moneys the Government draws from the innovation fund, if there are problems with the grid. This is a real problem and it must be analysed and focused on in everybody's interest.
Opportunities for development of the green economy generally are central to the vision for a smart economy, which recognises the need to move to a low-carbon society, drawing on our natural resources to tackle the interrelated challenges of climate change and energy security. We are making progress on the question of how we can build a sustainable energy industry in our own country. Targets are being met and there has been much investment, not only by companies such as the ESB but also by other companies entering the field. We do have identifiable advantages in wave and wind energy, which we need to harness, and we are in the process of developing these in the context of an all-island electricity market. The innovation task force is not related directly to that sector but it will provide assistance to those who wish to achieve innovation right across the economy, in terms of fiscal ideas as well as the generation of innovation within companies, change management, and a range of other issues that are fundamental in moving to a different way of doing things. Greater effectiveness and efficiency will result in higher productivity.