There is a time limit of two minutes for the Minister, four minutes overall for supplementary questions and a limit of one minute per supplementary question.
Other Questions
Departmental Agencies
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn
Question:6 Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he intends to review non-commercial State agency expenditure. [35187/11]
The comprehensive review of expenditure which has been carried out across all Departments in recent months has carefully examined all areas of Exchequer spending, including the funding provided by Departments to the non-commercial State bodies that operate under their aegis. The comprehensive review of expenditure has been finalised and it is now informing the decisions that the Government is taking in the context of deciding the Estimates for next year and the years beyond.
As a further part of the Government's reform plans, today I announced the Government's new target for further reductions in public sector numbers in the coming years. We are now in the process of determining new staffing ceilings for each of the public services and these will be announced in the first week in December as part of the budget and Estimates. A revised employment control framework, ECF, will be published at that time setting out the staff numbers ceiling for each Vote area, thus encompassing the individual Departments and their non-commercial agencies.
In respect of State agencies, the Deputy will be aware that today I announced the Government's plans to reduce the number of such bodies. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to reform and the pursuit of efficiencies by rationalising 48 bodies by the end of 2012 and by nominating a further 46 bodies for critical review by the end of June 2012. This radical streamlining of State bodiesis a key deliverable of the Government's reform programme and will lead to a more transparent, accountable and efficient public service.
The Government has also decided to: introduce "sunset clauses" when new bodies are created which will ensure that a new body will cease to exist after a predetermined date unless its mandate is specifically renewed; ensure that Departments regularly review the business case for all significant State bodies; and require that robust service level agreements are put in place as a matter of urgency by each Department with each of its State bodies. The overriding imperative must remain the absolute requirement to achieve major savings in all areas of expenditure and to reduce staff numbers and administrative overheads. This underscores the need to ensure that public services delivered by State bodies are done in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Finally, the issue of shared services, which has the potential to transform the cost effectiveness of State bodies, is also being examined by my Department and I hope to bring proposals to Government shortly.
I thank the Minister for confirming in the previous answer that the decision on the ESB, whatever the percentage, was that of the Government alone and not the troika. I have read the Minister's report. Is the Minister seeking to introduce a cutback in terms of fees for board members for these State agencies?
Is the Deputy referring to the stipend they get for being board members?
Yes. The Minister makes a general argument about increased efficiencies and cost savings but he has not detailed these anywhere. I refer, for instance, to one of the decisions made, that is, the case of the Ombudsman for Children. I wonder at the wisdom of this given how central, sensitive and successful the office has been. Is it wise to amalgamate even back office functions with another agency?
Fees for board members have already been reduced. The Deputy is probably aware of the controversy whereby I have also issued a directive to the effect that no public servant appointed to a board may be paid a fee. The idea of one person, one fee and one payment should exist.
With regard to the amalgamation it seems the back office supports for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children will do no damage to the independence or robustness of the latter office. It will simply make it more efficient and streamline the services. It is similar to several other amalgamations and shared services arrangements and serves as a driver for change and reform. We should be open to change and not simply think that something must have its own edifice. Government Department should have shared human resources management, pensions arrangements and pay. We do not need to duplicate such things.
I agree with the Minister's last points. Did he consult with the Ombudsman for Children in respect of the amalgamation?
I did not.
Did the Department?
We did not go through the possibility with every agency. I examined the possible amalgamations and they were fed out to Departments and observations were taken in. In each area where there is an amalgamation, a subsumption or abolition proposed, the views of the parent Department would have been taken into account.
Only limited consultation with the actual agencies took place.
I do not know the extent to which the Department consulted with them.
Does the Minister not think that is a flaw? The Minister is standing over this report. He has provided a list of amalgamations and so on. No rationale is provided in the report. I am concerned that the Minister does not have, in his headed paper, an analysis and confirmation that a minimum of consultation happened with the agencies in question. I am surprised he would stand over the report if consultation did not take place.
The Deputy would love to lead me into an area but I will not allow her to do that. To put it bluntly, this is about efficiencies and savings. One does not need to consult with every agency to determine if the State can get better back office support by amalgamating human resources management elsewhere. I did not ask every Department if it was willing to have a common pay and pensions system. Back office support does not require consultation. The independence of the offices concerned will be fully vindicated. The process of implementation will have to involve detailed consultation with all of the bodies and individuals concerned.
Fiscal Policy
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:7 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is satisfied that the optimum balance is achievable in the context of savings under the capital and current programmes; the extent to which previously identified or new targets are attainable while at the same time facilitating in so far as possible job creation opportunities, unemployment alleviation by way of interim schemes and specifically identified targets for each Government Department culminating in a competitive and growing economy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35196/11]
The Government is currently examining all options as regards the required consolidation in 2012, including the results of the comprehensive review of expenditure and the capital review and is steadfast in its determination to ensure the targets set out in the medium-term fiscal statement are met while prioritising programmes and projects that best support economic recovery.
As regards the balance between current and capital expenditure, the State has made huge strides in closing our infrastructure gap over recent years. For example, the national network of world-class motorways is now substantially complete and this progress allows us scope to scale back our capital allocation so that we can prioritise investment in the most high-growth, high-employment sectors.
The frontloading of capital consolidation also creates the scope to implement the large-scale reforms on current expenditure that are required in the early years of the programme to ensure the impact of current consolidation on the most vulnerable in society is mitigated to the greatest extent possible, while still delivering on our commitments under the EU-IMF programme of financial support.
We are continuing to fix the public finances and the banking system. In addition, we are focusing our constrained resources and limited flexibility on supporting job creation in specific areas with the greatest potential for employment growth, as we have done in the jobs initiative. Within the framework of the agreed consolidation, the Government is committed to promoting job creation and enhancing its labour market activation strategy to ensure the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, are in a position to take up jobs as soon as possible in our economy.
Our aim is that every individual on the live register will have deeper and more regular engagement and support according to their needs and will be offered job search assistance with appropriate education, training or work experience opportunity to increase their employability and keep them close to the labour market. To achieve this aim, next year a fundamental restructuring of the institutional framework for labour market activation is being put in place through the establishment of the national employment and entitlements service and the new further education and training authority. More regular engagement with unemployed people through these new structures will bring our labour market activation strategy into line with best international practice.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not wish to intrude into the budgetary area to an unnecessary extent and I am sure the Minister would not want me to. Is he is satisfied that each Department is capable of playing the necessary role to bridge the gaps that have been identified and make the necessary contributions in terms of the alleviation of unemployment and meeting the targets already committed to by previous Administrations and the current Administration?
Local Government
David Stanton
Question:8 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 40 and 41 of 5 July 2011, the further progress that has been made regarding the roll-out of the revaluation programme to local authorities outside of Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34427/11]
As I explained in response to previous questions, the revaluation programme began in November 2005 in the South Dublin County Council area where it was completed in 2007. It has since been completed in the Fingal County Council area in 2009 and in Dún Laoghaire—Rathdown in 2010. The revaluation of the Dublin City Council area was commenced in May this year, having been postponed for well over a year because of the volatility and conditions in the property market. The Dublin city part of the programme will entail the valuation of approximately 25,000 properties and the new list will be published in 2013.
It is intended to roll out the revaluation programme to other local authority areas shortly. I understand the commissioner intends to make an order for revaluation of the Waterford City, Waterford County and Dungarvan Town Council areas before the end of the year. He has also initiated formal consultations with Limerick City and Limerick County Council on the timing of revaluation in those areas.
The commissioner, in consultation with officials from my Department, has been reviewing various proposals for modernising and streamlining the valuation process, including the appeal provisions, in the interests of both ratepayers and the local authorities. He is conscious that progress has been slow and he is anxious to improve this. For that reason, he has indicated that following this detailed examination he has concluded it may be feasible to introduce a self-assessment approach, accompanied by appropriate controls, and that it might be possible also to outsource some of the work. As well as helping to speed up the national programme, an element of outsourcing, if it proves practicable, would allow comparison of the Valuation Office productivity and costs with those in the private sector.
The enabling provisions to allow for these changes are included in proposals for amending legislation made to me by the commissioner which are being examined in Department. A significant amount of work has already been undertaken and preliminary heads of a Bill have been drafted in conjunction with the Valuation Office and the Attorney General which I hope to bring to Government shortly.
Preparatory work is continuing in drawing up the detailed schemes and, subject to the enactment of the legislation and availability of the necessary resources, I understand that the intention would be to initiate pilot revaluations in two local authority areas. The Valuation Office is also looking at ways of speeding up the capture of data on properties throughout the country in advance of revaluation in particular areas.
I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the progress that has been made. I wish to impress upon him the urgent need for further progress in this area. Will he comment on an issue that has been brought to my attention? The average rates for hotel rooms in Cork are approximately €3,000 per bedroom, whereas in some parts of Dublin some properties have already been revaluated and the rate is just over €1,000. Can the Minister comment on competitiveness in that area?
Hotels in Cork are finding it difficult to compete in the face of such disparity in rates. Many hotels and other businesses are experiencing this difficulty because valuations are so out of date. Will the Minister take this issue on board as a matter of urgency? Will he seek to push for a resolution as soon as possible, through outsourcing, self-assessment and the updating of existing lists, to which he referred? The revaluation commenced in 2005 but has only been completed in a small area of the country.
I fully appreciate what the Deputy is saying and I fully agree with him. When I first looked at this issue I was dismayed at the slow pace of progress. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to undertake any valuation when property prices are in total flux, as has been the case in recent years. The competitiveness issue the Deputy has highlighted is a significant problem throughout the State. That type of competitive imbalance on the basis of simple geography should not arise.
Upon assuming office, I was concerned at the time envisaged for the completion of the full revaluation of the country which, if we did not make any changes, was scheduled to reach completion as late as 2018. It is for this reason that I am introducing legislation and considering other measures such as self-valuation — with appropriate safeguards — and outsourcing. I hope to be in a position to bring concrete proposals to Government this term.
The Minister did not mention the State's second city, Cork, and Cork county. Can he give any indication as to when the revaluation might occur there? It is important for the southern region that it be done as soon as possible.
I will revert to the Deputy in regard to when the work is envisaged to be completed in Cork.
Ministerial Staff
Sandra McLellan
Question:9 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of constituency and parliamentary staff appointed to Ministers whose salary exceeds their grade ceiling, in tabular form; and if he signed off on these salaries. [35182/11]
The guidelines on staffing in ministerial offices were revised following decisions by the Government on a number of cost-saving measures relating to the personal appointees of Ministers and Ministers of State. The guidelines specify that all appointments of ministerial staff, including the pay and terms and conditions of employment, require the prior sanction of my Department. Appointments from outside the Civil Service also require the sanction of the Taoiseach. The guidelines set out limits for the number of staff that can be appointed to private and constituency offices. They also provide that separate arrangements may apply to the staffing requirements of the offices of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste.
In light of the current economic circumstances, the Government decided on 15 March to reduce the staffing levels in Ministers' private and constituency offices. Under the new limits, each Minister may have a maximum of eight staff in his or her private office, reduced from ten, and four staff in his or her constituency office, down from six. Each Minister of State may have a maximum of five staff in his or her private office, down from seven, and three staff in his or her constituency office, reduced from five. Each Minister of State who is assigned to more than one Department may have a total of seven staff in his or her private office, down from nine.
This marks a considerable reduction from the levels of staffing permitted under the previous Government, with the overall reduction in staff assigned to Ministers' private and constituency offices being in the order of 25%. Within these staffing limits a Minister or Minister of State may appoint one personal secretary and one personal assistant. The personal secretary or personal assistant may be assigned to the Minister's private office or constituency office at the discretion of the Minister.
There has been one case in which I have sanctioned the appointment of a staff member, to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, at a rate above that set out in the guidelines. This was done on an exceptional basis so that the individual did not suffer a loss of pay. In a small number of cases I have allowed people to start on a higher point within the appropriate salary scale for personal secretary and personal assistant. I have already provided the Deputy with full details regarding the appointment of special advisers in answers to recent parliamentary questions.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He indicated that in "a small number of cases" he has sanctioned appointments at above the appropriate point on the pay scale. Can he provide specific figures in this regard and indicate in respect of which Ministries these sanctions were granted?
I answered that question in a previous parliamentary question, which I will send to the Deputy.
That is fine.
Public Service Reform
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:10 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which specific and desirable reforms have been identified by and within each Department and all subsidiary bodies State and semi-State; the degree to which specific issues have been identified as being fundamental in the context of maximum benefit to the efficiency and efficacy of their respective structures and the Exchequer; the extent to which such reforms will impact positively on the economic situation in the short, medium and long term; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35197/11]
This afternoon I announced several key developments in regard to public service reform, including the publication of the Government's public service reform plan which sets the basis for the comprehensive and strategic reform of the public sector in the coming years. At the heart of this reform agenda is a focus on five major commitments to change. These include placing customer service at the core of everything we do; maximising new and innovative service delivery channels; radically reducing our costs to drive better value for money; leading, organising and working in new ways; and a strong focus on implementation and delivery.
The plan, which has been circulated to all Deputies and is available on my Department's website, outlines the priority actions and time lines for reform in a broad range of areas such as public service numbers, e-Government, customer service, shared services, procurement, business process improvement, public expenditure reform, agency rationalisation and so on. Several actions in these and other areas are already under way. The plan also focuses on actions to improve performance by organisations and individuals in order to ensure greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
The reform plan sets out how implementation should be driven and monitored, including by the reform and delivery office which I have established in my Department. It is planned to have an integrated approach to public service reform which will align a number of key elements, including the programme for Government, the comprehensive review of expenditure, delivery of reform to front line services within individual sectors, co-ordinated delivery of key cross-cutting reforms and the public service agreement.
My Department has been given a clear mandate to drive and enable public service reform and the focus now is on implementing the key reforms required. In this context, the new reform and delivery office has a key role to facilitate, drive and support the reform programme. The office is being led by a recently appointed programme director who is working closely with organisations across the public service with a view to enabling them to drive the delivery of reform at a local level, as well as lead on cross-cutting reform issues.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The challenging fiscal position which we face means that far-reaching reform of the public service is essential in order to ensure it is customer-focused, leaner, more efficient, better integrated and delivering maximum value for money. Significant savings are already being made by this Government, not least in regard to public service numbers. A reduction of 5,000 is expected this year, bringing the numbers to below 300,000 by the end of 2011. By 2015, public service numbers are expected to have fallen by 37,500 since 2008, a reduction of almost 12%. Once achieved, this will have reduced our gross pay bill by more than €2.5 billion, or15%, since 2008. The public service agreement implementation body today published a summary of progress on the implementation of the agreement in the last six months, which shows that good progress continues to be made in that regard.
The comprehensive review of expenditure, CRE, has involved a root and branch examination of all areas of public spending in order to determine where resources can be moved from old spending lines to new priorities and how the business of Government can be delivered in new ways. The outcome of the CRE, which has involved input from all Departments and their agencies, will be published shortly.
The process of reform that is under way will create a public service of which we can be proud, building on Ireland's long tradition of service to the public and the State. I look forward to engaging with the relevant Oireachtas committees in this regard.
I thank the Minister for his extensive reply. In regard to the monitoring of the ongoing programme, will he indicate the extent to which specific targets have been identified as being achievable within a specific timeframe and the degree to which this will be encouraged and supervised by the relevant section of the Department? Will he also outline the degree to which those specific targets have been estimated to have a direct impact on the economic situation in terms of competitiveness over a specific period?
The Deputy makes a valid and important point regarding the key element of reform. Like draining the River Shannon or restoring the Irish language, reform is often talked about. However, the key criterion will be the delivery of our objectives in this regard.
In the lead-up to the formation of the Government, both Fine Gael and the Labour Party undertook careful analyses of the imperative of reform. Both parties came broadly to the same conclusion, namely, that we must have a Department and a Cabinet-ranked Minister with control of expenditure in order to drive reform. That is why my Department was created. Within the Department we have a political reform unit which will deal with issues such as the freedom of information legislation, register of lobbyists and all of the other important political efforts to bring about transparency. In addition, we have the public service reform unit, which is led by a director who has worked largely in the private sector in bringing about change management there. We have set out a range of specific targets, described them and described the target date for their delivery. These measures will ensure our plan is effective.
The centrepiece of the announcement today is a significant increase in the number of workers who will be taken out of the public service. Is a serious analysis being done of the value for money of this measure in a context where agency or contract staff are often taking up the slack in the public service, Civil Service and local government? I have a later question the answer to which I have not yet seen. Do we know whether it is better for the Exchequer in terms of value for money and delivery of service if things are outsourced, done by agencies or contractors? I do not believe there are any figures or evidence to back that up.
I am happy to be able to agree with the Deputy — I very seldom can in this House. I disagree with him on his first point. Downsizing is the pivotal point in the announcement. We need to downsize to achieve the payroll reductions we need. I do not believe the Deputy would wish me to start cutting the pay rates of the vast bulk of public servants.
Absolutely. The Minister should increase them.
A tiny number have very significant pay, but the vast bulk have very ordinary pay. In order to protect pay rates we need to reduce the numbers and do things differently and more efficiently. The reform agenda is at the core of this, involving how to do things differently with smaller numbers. The public service has risen to that challenge, by and large, and is doing things differently by managing the considerable downsizing that has happened since 2008. Greater challenges will arise in the future.
I agree entirely with the Deputy on agency staff. There will be no savings in replacing pensionable full-time civil servants with agency staff. There might be occasions when that will be necessary when there are pressure points. By and large, we need to use the architecture ofthe Croke Park agreement to move people to fill the gaps and continue to provide a decent service.
Capital Expenditure Programme
Dessie Ellis
Question:11 Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the type of Exchequer funded projects that the European Investment Bank and Council of Europe Bank have indicated they would be willing to fund. [35190/11]
In recognition of Ireland's current difficulties, both the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Bank have indicated their support for Ireland and indicated a willingness to offer loans directly to Ireland in respect of infrastructure projects. The interest rate on these loans would be lower than those obtainable either in the bond market or from the European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF. The loans could be used to finance the traditional procurement of infrastructure projects or to finance an Exchequer capital contribution to PPPs. Any moneys obtained would not represent additional funding for infrastructure projects but would simply displace more expensive sources of Exchequer financing.
I understand the Council of Europe Bank would be willing to lend money for such projects as detention facilities, projects in the education and health sectors, Government buildings and environmental protection projects. The European Investment Bank has been a significant investor in Ireland's PPP roads programme and has also made substantial investment in the commercial semi-State energy sector. The EIB has indicated that it would be willing to contemplate further applications for direct loans to the State to fund projects such as public transport, research and development, energy, environmental services and education. For example, we may be seeking EIB assistance for the Luas Broombridge project, which I announced last week. We continue to work with EIB on maintaining its engagement with PPPs.
This morning, officials from my Department met representatives from European Investment Bank. Deputy McDonald was a little breathless arriving here today. I ran in from a meeting I had just left with the vice president of the European Investment Bank to discuss investment projects, two of which he signed off today relating to education and energy. There are others on which I want to engage with him.
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am glad that engagement is under way. He is probably aware that we launched our pre-budget submission this week. Broadband infrastructure is a very obvious absence from the Government's capital expenditure programme. For the purposes of developing broadband and wind energy infrastructure, and as part of our capacity to provide stimulus for jobs, we encourage the Government to use every lever and explore every opportunity with the European Investment Bank and with any other international institution that can assist. Earlier the Minister made the point that stimulus would be great but we simply cannot find the cash for it. This underlines the point that there are partners who will provide money in a flexible manner and at good interest rates, which can facilitate investment in infrastructure such as broadband.
I agree entirely with the Deputy. One of the areas I discussed with the vice president of the European Investment Bank, who has the wonderful name of Plutarchos Sakellaris, was that of wind energy and other alternative energy sources. It has already invested in infrastructure and also wants to invest directly in wind farms, which was one of the matters we discussed this afternoon.
On broadband infrastructure, I am anxious not to use scarce public moneys or even scarce borrowed moneys to displace commercial investment that is happening anyway. A very significant capital investment in broadband is happening. Deputy Wallace will know that Eircom has just made a very significant investment in Wexford, a town we both represent, which now has a very high level of broadband of 150 megabit. That level of investment is happening across the country in different ways. Satellite technology is being used. I do not want to dislodge investment that is coming from the commercial companies in any event. I have asked my colleague to investigate the significant amount of money put into MANs. In Wexford very few people are using the MAN after a significant investment. We need to ensure we do not just invest money for the sake of it and that we get real value for money and it drives jobs and investment.
Constitutional Amendments
Sean Fleming
Question:12 Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his role in relation to the constitutional convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35120/11]
I understand that this question will be dealt with by the Taoiseach next week. There was a technical difficulty in transferring the question from my Department to the Department of the Taoiseach. I had understood it would not appear on the Order Paper today.
We will raise it with the Taoiseach next week.
It is automatically being transferred.
Does this mean that the constitutional convention is a matter for the Taoiseach and not for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform?
We thought the Minister had responsibility for reform.
I would be very happy to answer any questions on the constitutional convention. The Taoiseach will be setting out the position regarding the convention when he answers the question next week.
Public Sector Remuneration
Michael Moynihan
Question:13 Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason he is not proceeding with plans to reduce pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers in the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35136/11]
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:30 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details of the basis upon which the Presidential salary of €249,014 per annum, approximately seven times the average wage, was agreed as an appropriate salary at a time when unemployment is over 14%. [35184/11]
Sandra McLellan
Question:39 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details of the basis upon which the salary cap of €200,000 was agreed as an appropriate salary ceiling for senior civil servants, Government Ministers and an Taoiseach. [35183/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 30 and 39 together.
In April 2009, the then Minister for Finance requested the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector to undertake a review of top-level public service pay, to take account of the changed budgetary and economic circumstances and developments in the private sector pay environment and by reference to pay rates for similar posts in the eurozone. This review formed the basis for the reduction of the pay of the Taoiseach by 20% with effect from January 2010 and subsequently a cumulative reduction of 25% with effect from January 2011.
The current Government considered that the reductions adopted did not go far enough and decided on its first day in office in March to reduce the salary of the Taoiseach further by adopting a cumulative reduction of almost 30% bringing the annual salary of the Taoiseach to €200,000 in accordance with commitments in the party manifestos. Pro rata reductions for Ministers and other officeholders were also adopted. These reflect the Government’s policy of salary reduction and restraint for higher earners in the public sector.
More recently, in line with the decision to reduce the salary of the Taoiseach, Ministers and senior officeholders, the Government accepted my proposals to introduce a general pay ceiling of €200,000 for future appointments to higher positions across the public service, a general pay ceiling of €250,000 for future appointments to CEO posts within commercial semi-State companies and a voluntary waiver system of up to 15% for current post holders who have salaries in excess of the relevant pay ceiling.
Following the adoption by the people of the recent referendum on the remuneration of judges, I considered it more appropriate and expedient to provide for the new statutory provisions for the remuneration of judges together with the necessary legislative provisions giving effect to the administrative reductions applied to the Taoiseach and other senior officeholders through a single dedicated enactment rather than providing for the latter in the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011, the Second Stage of which this House has already passed. Accordingly, as I indicated previously, it is my intention to delete the remuneration provisions from that Bill on Committee Stage and to incorporate them into a new Bill providing for the remuneration of judges and senior officeholders, which I intend to publish later this week. This approach will ensure the statutory requirements on remuneration will secure early passage through the Oireachtas.
Since 1973, the personal remuneration of the President has been set in the Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Act 1973 at the rate paid to the Chief Justice plus 10%. Consistent with this legislation, the proposed new salary rate for the President of €249,014 per annum equates to the proposed new rate for a future new entrant Chief Justice at €226,376 plus 10%.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The latter part of the Minister's reply dealt with my specific question of why we are not proceeding with this matter under the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011, Second Stage of which has been already passed by this House. That legislation is already before the Houses and could complete its passage through the Houses quickly. I accept that the Minister wishes to deal with this issue separately as a result of the referendum and that he will shortly publish the relevant legislation. Which legislation does the Minister expect will first complete its passage through the Houses? Which is a priority for the Minister?
The single scheme pensions Bill only affects new entrants and will not result in any cost savings for 40 years. Given that there is currently a moratorium in place this is not the most urgent legislation. While we support early passage of that legislation the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011 deals with current salary rates. Perhaps the Minister will set out the expected timescale for passage of the new Bill and will comment briefly on the reason the relevant provision is contained in it and if that was the correct way to go about this.
The more appropriate vehicle is financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation which deals with judges in the same manner as every other public servant. For correctness, I am happier that it be done on that basis rather than as part of unique legislation. It will be part of general FEMPI legislation. I am also taking the opportunity to statutorily reduce the pay of the Taoiseach and Ministers, currently being done on a voluntary basis.
The Bill was approved by Government on Tuesday. I hope to publish it tomorrow. There is nothing controversial in the legislation and with the goodwill of Members opposite we will be able to ensure its passage through both Houses within a matter of days. It is important that the extra provisions come into effect from 1 January next. On the pensions Bill, there is a certain urgency about it in that as soon as it is enacted the provisions will apply. The sooner it comes into force, the sooner it will apply.
Exchequer Savings
Mick Wallace
Question:14 Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in view of the shortage of Exchequer funds at present the reason that he has not intervened to prevent unnecessary expenditure on the planning stages of projects which are unlikely to be completed during the life of this Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35203/11]
The Deputy will be aware that we have had to significantly scale back and reprioritise public expenditure in order to meet the pressing need to restore our finances to a sustainable path. As part of this, we undertook a major review of our capital programme. We have had to focus on what we must do rather than what we would wish to do. This has involved looking at projects in which we have already made considerable investment and evaluating whether it would be more cost effective to proceed or defer them until a later stage. We intend that projects deferred will ultimately be delivered when public finances have been restored.
It is important to ensure that capital programmes and projects are properly managed and rolled out. This requires that public works are appropriately planned and delivered. The guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in the public sector set out the steps that Departments and agencies need to take in planning for their capital projects. Departments must ensure that they undertake proper appraisal and planning and that costs in this regard are appropriately controlled.
Last week, the Government announced the new capital envelopes for Departments for the period 2012-2016. Departments are now engaged in reformulating their project delivery schedules and project planning processes in accordance with their new financial allocations. In this context, Departments are also carefully considering the range and scope of planning that are appropriate and justifiable to meet our likely infrastructure needs over the five year horizon and beyond. Obviously, we must think beyond the five year horizon.
I understand that certain projects are no longer feasible and that it makes no sense for Government to go ahead with them. One of those projects is the New Ross bypass which it was estimated would cost €350 million. It has been pretty obvious for some months that projects like this would not go ahead during the lifetime of this Government. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, made that quite clear. I do not, therefore, understand the reason the Government allowed further money to be spent on the New Ross bypass, which might never be built.
I contacted Wexford County Council and New Ross Town Council and was told that money was spent on this project this week, which amazes me. If the Government had acted quickly enough the purchase of land for a bypass which we cannot afford to build could have been averted.
I do not agree with the Deputy that because we cannot afford it now it will never be built. We have often been criticised in the past for not taking a long-term view of things. By the time the M50 was built, it was too small. While I am critical of the previous Government it did engage in some strategic thinking. The motorway system was a good investment. We need to complete parts of it. For example, in relation to the M11, it makes no sense to build it 80% of the way and to leave the remaining section to Rosslare-Europort unbuilt. While we will not be able to afford to do that in the foreseeable future — as I have told people directly — the dilemma is do we then allow people to build on the corridor required to complete it resulting in our having to in ten years time commence replanning and re-routing? These are real dilemmas.
Similarly, the New Ross bypass is a worthy project but we might have to rethink the scale of it. The Deputy made valid points during our debate yesterday on the public capital programme. We need to tease out these issues in detail. We cannot shut down long-term planning and confine our horizon to the next difficult five years. This country will recover and will be in a position to invest again. We should not foreclose on the opportunities to invest in infrastructure be it roads, schools and so on. Public transport plans such as Metro North are feasible in the longer term. They are just not affordable now.
The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, made the sensible decision of not purchasing the land for the Oilgate project. However, money was spent in the past few weeks on the purchase of land in New Ross at a time when money is scarce. While there have been many good roads built in this country, we got carried away with ourselves and some of it is over the top.
Thank you, Deputy.
I believe that a relief bridge in New Ross at a cost of €35 million is a more likely outcome in the future than is a €350 million bypass.
The Deputy may be correct. A number of Fine Gael councillors from the area might agree with him.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.49 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 18 November 2011.