Charlie McConalogue
Question:51Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress made to date in drawing up legislation to deal with whistleblowers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3765/12]
Other Questions
Legislative Programme
My Department is making good progress in developing the necessary draft legislation to implement the commitment made in the programme of Government in regard to whistleblower protection. Following the recent completion of the process of consultation with other Departments, I expect to present these proposals to my Government colleagues shortly to secure approval for the drafting process for the Bill. Subject to other Government priorities in the legislative agenda and the Whips' good will, the intention is that the Bill will be published by the middle of the year.
I am pleased to hear the reply and presume the Minister is speaking about the protected disclosure Bill.
I was very concerned because it seemed the issue had been referred back to individual Departments to be buried. This issue is all the more relevant having heard over the weekend about the case of an advocate for persons availing of mental health services who had made public comments and found herself out of a job. I was happy to hear on the radio on the way here that she had been reinstated. This shows there is still an attitudinal problem among senior management in many public sector offices. Had she praised the service offered on Christmas Day to those clients, what happened to her would not have happened, but she spoke the unvarnished truth. I, therefore, encourage the Minister to act on this matter as soon as possible. When the legislation is being changed, I ask him to put in place measures to seek to change attitudes in the system. That is equally important.
As the Deputy knows, the hardest thing to do is to change ingrained attitudes. He is aware that I have more than a passing interest in the issue of whistleblowing, having had to traipse to the High Court and the Supreme Court to protect the rights of individuals to give information to Members of the House on allegations of wrongdoing. I know how stressful this can be. At one stage I was on the hazard for €500,000 in legal fees. Thankfully, I was indemnified by my party, although I do not know how it could have afforded to pay. I am in a privileged position in this House but no ordinary citizen should ever be in that position. We will advance legislative provision as quickly as I can, although there will be resistance from some areas. I produced whistle-blowing legislation, as did the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, in opposition. We want joined up, comprehensive legislation that goes into areas that are all-encompassing. We will have a robust model. We have examined carefully the New Zealand model, the United Kingdom model and the South African model, which I believe was the progenitor of all of them from 2000, and the Dáil will have an opportunity to add its views on having that in the first half of this year.
Sale of State Assets
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn
Question:52Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the Troika have imposed a financial target from the disposal of State assets. [3791/12]
The context of the Deputy's question is the Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, governing the EU-IMF Funding Programme for Ireland, which commits the Government to considering options for the ambitious programme of asset disposal, based on the programme for Government and the report of the review group on state assets and liabilities.
In our discussions, the troika emphasised that it views asset disposal as a structural reform measure intended to improve efficiency and competition in the economy, while offering the prospect of reducing overall debt levels. While it is anxious that the Government's programme of asset disposal should be ambitious, it has not imposed any particular target for proceeds from the sale of State assets on us.
It has signalled that it would be prepared to agree to the retention of a sizeable amount of proceeds from asset disposal for investment by Government in job creation initiatives as I have indicated previously.
I am glad the Government has clarified that any choices to privatise will be Government choices and are not being foisted upon it by the troika. The Minister said from the get-go that the sale of semi-State assets would refer to those that are non-strategic but he has failed consistently to offer a definition as to what differentiates a non-strategic from a strategic asset. We know he intends to sell off a stake in the ESB, and the speculation around the likes of Bord Gáis leads me to wonder whether the Government has given any meaningful consideration to or has any understanding of what are strategic assets for the State. Those assets, as the Minister is aware, are self-financing and return dividends consistently. The Minister states that the troika views an ambitious privatisation programme as a structural reform to improve efficiency but the decisions taken by his own Government fly in the face of that analysis. How does the Minister propose to deal with the issue of water infrastructure? He is dealing with it wrongly in my view in respect of charges but structurally he has opted for a commercial semi-State structure. He is doing that because he knows from past experience that approach works. ESB and Bord Gáis have delivered first class infrastructure. The Minister has never given any rational explanation as to how, from his viewpoint, the part privatisation of these assets gives us any kind of medium or long-term advantage. Also, the Minister used the term "a sizeable amount of proceeds". What is a sizeable amount of proceeds?
The Deputy has asked a number of questions and made a number of assertions again. She fundamentally misunderstands, maybe deliberately or maybe not, the Government intention in this regard. We negotiated the programme for Government against the backdrop, as I indicated to Deputy Wallace, of the incredible shortage of capital for investment in new jobs in this economy. We debated how we could have access to it, and the NewERA concept from Fine Gael was to look at what they did in the early years of the State. The originator of that idea came from the ICTU, at least that is what they told us when we met them in advance. That was their concept. It was to see how we could use resources by amalgamating the resources of the semi-State companies. The NewERA entity is a progression on that. I do not suggest that ICTU would support it but the idea would be to examine how we could hand over some of the current semi-State organisations and use the capital asset value derived from that to invest in the next generation of State jobs.
It is not a contradiction to seek resources, for example, to invest in the new Irish water company, Water Ireland because, we hope it will be the next Bord na Móna in terms of being a job creator to provide sustainable water, ensure communities can thrive and so on. Many good ideas will be presented when we have access to money. There will not be a fire sale.
The Deputy opposite in particular loves announcing the bad news such that we were not going to be able to reduce the interest on our borrowings or maintain the minimum wage and that we would not be able to do anything, but we have done all these things. When the time is right we will sell non-strategic assets and use the proceeds derived to grow the next generation of jobs. That is the ambition we have.
Does Deputy McDonald want to ask another question?
The mind boggles - I do not know where to start.
Very briefly, please, Deputy.
I will boil it down to one issue. The Minister said that he will have permission to use "a sizeable amount of the proceeds". Those were his words. The troika was notably guarded when asked about that. What does a sizeable amount mean? Does it mean 50% or 80% of the proceeds, or does the Minister know the percentage?
In truth, we have not fixed on an actual percentage because it is a matter of ongoing discussions. We have not fixed on the full quantum nor on the percentage that can be used for job creation as that is a matter of ongoing discussions.
How can the Minister be so sure that it will be sizeable?
We have agreed on the word "sizeable". That is what I have just indicated.
The troika did not utter the word "sizeable", just to be clear on that.
No, they did not, but in my discussions with the troika I proffered several words and that was a word we agreed we would use in relation to that.
I call Deputy Wallace to ask a brief question.
Will the Minister give a guarantee that under any Government of which he is a part Irish Water will not be sold?
In the programme for Government, in regard to which I was part of the negotiating team, we said we would protect strategic interests. I regard water as an absolute strategic interest. From the discussions that have taken place, neither party in government would regard water as anything but strategic.
Departmental Staff
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:53Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if there have been any formal or informal requests made to him to secure a salary in excess of €200,000 for the Secretary General of the Department of Finance position due to be filled on Kevin Cardiff’s departure to the European Court of Auditors. [3790/12]
Neither I nor my officials have received a request to make an exception to the current annual pay rate of €200,000, established for Secretaries General in Departments generally in regard to the appointment of a Secretary General to the Department Finance.
The Deputy will be aware that the rates for new appointments as Secretary General in respect of all Departments were reduced following my review of salary rates for public servants in June of last year. Following my review the Government accepted my proposal to establish a pay ceiling of €200,000 for appointments to the most senior positions in the public service. The annual rate of €200,000 established for the Secretary General in the Department of Finance reflects the key role and responsibilities that post holds in the public service and represents an appropriate balance between the need identified following my review to moderate salaries in senior public service posts while maintaining remuneration rates that will attract and fairly remunerate the necessary skills and experience to support the restoration of our economic sovereignty.
Above all else what has astonished me most about the Minister, as a Minister with responsibility for reform, is the dogged manner in which he has defended very high pay rates in the public sector. The ESRI, the OECD and others were quoted earlier by Deputy Stephen Donnelly. The Minister will probably also be aware of a 2011 document published by the IPA. Not alone does it reflect that we have run away rates for those in the upper echelons but it also reflects that the pay gap between the higher levels and the lower levels within the public sector are enormous and much greater than within the EU-15. I do not believe the Minister is serious about tackling very high pay. A Secretary General should not earn €200,000 at a time when the State is insolvent, we are all in crisis and we are told that we are all in this together.
I am glad the Minister has confirmed that in this instance he will not breach the pay ceiling, albeit hugely high, in respect of the replacement in the Department of Finance. The Minister will have to forgive me because my confidence in his commitment to this issue was shattered by the fact that we discovered, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, that in respect of his own adviser, the Minister had sought to break the pay ceiling he proposed be established. He has come into this House to defend very high pay levels. He has repeatedly quoted that the salaries of Secretaries General have fallen from €285,000 to €200,000, while not reflecting the scandal that they were on €285,000 to begin with. He has told us that he is all in favour of dealing with runaway pay rates for those in the upper echelons, yet he by his own actions has defied that.
When the issue of pay in the public service is raised, I want to it to be clear that I and others do not refer to clerical officers or young teachers. The Minister knows precisely to whom we refer.
The Deputy obviously believes there is political capital in touting out the notion of I somehow defend top level pay when the truth by any objective criterion, it that nobody has reduced top level pay more than I have in one year. No Minister with responsibility for the public service has ever reduced top level pay across the public service more than I have. The Deputy knows she is talking poppycock in relation to that.
Unlike the Deputy opposite, I am a passionate supporter of the public service. The Deputy wants public service pay rates to be reduced to some low average so that we do not actually attract the expertise we need. That flies in the face of all the expert analysis of failure that has occurred. If the Deputy reads any of the objective analysis of the Department of Finance by Nyberg or anybody else, she will see that they state that there was a critical lack of experts and expertise. People say we need more economists, lawyers and legal experts within the public service but she would have all of those driven out of the public service to allow us, I suppose, buy them in from the private sector because that is the only way we could do it, and thereby dumb down the public service. I will not do that. That is not the view of this Government, but we will moderate all salaries, and we have taken a significant step towards starting that in a way that has not happened ever before. There is no thinking about that. That is a fact. We have reduced the top level of pay, maintained public services and not had strikes in a way that has not been done previously. There is more work to be done in this area, as I indicated in my reply to Deputy Donnelly, but Deputy McDonald might be slightly gracious occasionally in acknowledging the work done to date in this regard.
Has Deputy McDonald a brief question?
I do not accept the Minister's L'Oreal defence of overpaid public servants that somehow they are worth it.
That is another sound bite.
It must be borne in mind that these are the very characters who were being paid huge sums of money when this State was sleep-walking into the crisis in which we find ourselves. I am glad the Minister has clarified the matter and I take it the incoming Secretary General for the Department of Finance will not be another case study in breaking the Minister's own pay ceilings.
There is an implication in the very nature of the question, namely, if the Minister had been requested to increase the salary, that I had been so requested. There was not a request, and it will fall within the pay norms. I did not get a chance to talk about my special adviser, which the Deputy has raised now in three extraneous questions, but I hope we will reach the question so that I can answer that too.
Departmental Expenditure
Liam Twomey
Question:54Deputy Liam Twomey asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if focusing cuts in expenditure on the non pay element of public expenditure is having a disproportionate impact on service provision; if there are any plans on reducing payroll costs, other than reduction in numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3320/12]
Given the overarching requirement to put the public finances on a sustainable footing, it is inevitable that savings must be identified across every area of public spending. This involves difficult decisions on how to allocate and prioritise the more limited resources that are now available. However, in making these decisions, the Government has endeavoured in so far as possible to implement adjustments on a fair and equitable basis, protecting and preserving the core front-line public services with due regard to the relative impacts on pay costs and services. The comprehensive review of expenditure conducted over the course of 2011 has assisted the Government in identifying broad-based savings measures consistent with budgetary objectives, and the results of this exercise are set out in detail in the comprehensive expenditure report published on 5 December last.
The report notes the vital role the reductions in numbers and the pay bill have had in terms of fiscal consolidation to date. It also notes that while public service staffing levels have been reduced by 6%, the net pay bill has been reduced by 14%. The greater reduction is due to the pay cuts applied in 2010 and the ongoing pension related deduction allied with other measures to reduce the overall public pay bill. As a consequence, the overall cost of paying public servants will have fallen by 20% by 2015.
I have also announced further Government initiatives to reduce the cost of allowances, overtime and premium payments in the public service in 2012, with further savings identified in future years. Initiatives to address annual leave allowances and excess sick leave absences will also boost productivity.
The Government has reaffirmed the key commitments made in the public service agreement on pay rates and job security for public servants. However, these commitments are contingent on delivery of the necessary non-pay flexibility and public service reforms required under the agreement.
State Agencies
Seán Crowe
Question:55Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the actions his Departments Reform and Delivery Office has taken to simplify the administrative landscape in respect of State agency classifications and listings. [3801/12]
Sandra McLellan
Question:88Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide a full list of all non-commercial State agencies. [3783/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 55 and 88 together.
The Government is committed to a programme of public service reform and improvement. As part of the work in this area, we are looking at classifications and listings of State agencies in order to produce more coherent and focused directories of services for citizens and the Oireachtas.
Deputies will be aware of the Government's plans to reduce the number of State agencies. This radical streamlining is 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 a new body will cease to exist after a predetermined date unless its mandate is specifically renewed; ensure Departments regularly review the continuing 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.
This work is ongoing and will lead to a more consistent and straightforward classification of State bodies, with greater democratic oversight by the various Oireachtas committees within whose remit they fall. In the meantime, each Department will have details of each of the bodies and agencies within its remit. In the case of my own Department there are a number of types of bodies under its aegis but none of these come strictly within the meaning of "non-commercial semi-State agency".
The Minister will know that a number of months ago I requested from his Department a list of State agencies. After much toing and froing, I received a list of 150 bodies. However, that list was incomplete. When I queried it, I was referred to the Institute of Public Administration which lists 250 agencies. A number of weeks ago I raised the matter with the Minister at a committee meeting and he assured me that there was a comprehensive list of State agencies, but he did not send it to me. Weeks later I wrote to the reform and delivery programme director who wrote back to confirm that there was no such list. If the Minister is going to streamline State agencies, I suggest a first step would be to have a full list. It is astonishing that the Minister with responsibility for public sector reform who tells us he is going to smash quangos and streamline State agencies does not have a list of those very agencies.
For once, I largely agree with the Deputy. Since we started the dialogue I have been anxious to obtain a comprehensive list. There are some listed agencies which no longer function and have not done so for years. I have asked every line Department for its list. Some bodies operate as a subset of another State agency. We will draw all of them together. That work is ongoing.
I never said I wanted to smash quangos. I have never used such language. I want to streamline State agencies. In the programme I published last November I laid out the 48 bodies which would be rationalised this year. We will conclude the review of a further 46 bodies by the middle of this year and determine their future.
Some bodies on the Deputy's list of 250 have not met for years. I brought a report to the Government this morning, for example, of a committee which comes into being when a senior civil servant who is leaving the public service applies to work in a related area and needs permission to do so. That group, although it is categorised as an agency or a quango, meets once in a blue moon. When we talk about quangos or agencies and not having comprehensive lists, we need to understand some of them are very tiny which meet to perform specific functions under legislation, some dating back decades, while others are very important. We know all the important agencies which we need to rationalise. We need to have a comprehensive list and we are working on it. I will get it to the Deputy as soon as it is available.
I suggest the Minister get a move on. Given that he has brought forward his proposals for rationalisation, I would have made a working assumption that he had a full list.
We know about everything that is significant.
It is not too much to ask of the system. It is a matter of proceeding in the correct fashion. I look forward to receiving the list.
Members of State Boards
Kevin Humphreys
Question:56Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to standardise the level of remuneration and expenses that are paid to each member of publicly appointed State boards both public sector and semi-State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3782/12]
My Department has no plans to standardise the rates of remuneration paid to State board members. The rates of remuneration paid to members of both commercial and non-commercial State boards are structured within four categories of fee payment type, the basis of which has regard to factors such as organisational scale, complexity and governance. The rates of expenses paid to State board members are a matter in the first instance for State boards to determine, having regard to the equivalent rates paid in the civil service. Since last November it has been the position that public servants serving on State boards are not paid a board fee payment for such service on the basis of the one person one salary principle.
As it would be helpful to have a sense of clarity around the salaries and expenses of State board members, I ask the Minister to consider this as a future measure. This would save the numerous parliamentary questions to try to find out the various payments made across State boards. I ask the Minister to look at the payments within the four payment bands and provide for clarity regarding the expenses paid to members of State boards. I ask him to review this suggestion.
On foot of the Deputy's request, I will look at this issue. There are four bands, or categories, depending on complexity. In the non-commercial State bodies the bands range from the top end - the more complicated and larger agencies - in which the fee per board member is €14,963 to the bottom end - the less complicated agencies - where the fee is €5,985. If the Deputy, or any Deputy, has any suggestions to make regarding the current structure, I will consider them in the review.
Public Service Reform
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:57Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the degree to which he has examined the efficacy and viability of all sectors throughout the public service in the aftermath of early retirement or other measures associated with fiscal readjustment; the degree to which provision can be made to ensure the functionality of sensitive sectors in the aftermath of staff reductions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3725/12]
Ireland is committed under the EU-IMF programme to reducing the overall size and costs of the public service. It remains a matter for local agency and parent Department management to decide on operational priorities within the framework of Government policy and resources allocated. All Departments and agencies have to deliver better value to the public in order to reduce the deficit and protect front-line services.
In recent years enhanced numbers monitoring systems and multi-annual employment frameworks have been put in place, as Deputies will know. These arrangements will be strengthened to ensure effect is given to Government decisions on public service numbers and will aid public bodies in planning future staffing and budget levels.
It is part of the day-to-day function of the boards and management of all public bodies to assess, budget and plan for current and ongoing staffing and financial requirements. Public service organisations must fully use all mechanisms set out in the public service reform plan for discharging work, including reorganisation and redeployment of staff. Only after this will the issue of recruitment for current or emerging business needs arise.
Each sector of the public service has established its own strategic workforce planning group to ensure sectoral employers are developing plans to deal with the operational and strategic consequences of staffing reductions. The sectoral groups are feeding into a central strategic workforce planning forum, for which the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is responsible. Factors such as the emerging demographic gaps in management will also be considered. It is hoped measures such as the recently advertised graduate recruitment competition will address such gaps. I have indicated that the sanction of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must be sought if a Department identifies a potential exception to the moratorium on recruitment. As I have listed the circumstances in which an exception to the moratorium may be granted, I will not do so again. I have mentioned that a number of grades in the education and health sectors are exempt from the moratorium.
Semi-State Bodies
Timmy Dooley
Question:58Deputy Timmy Dooley asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the position regarding the sale of shares in semi-State companies in view of the current economic conditions which could affect the price of such sales; if he will provide a timeline for such sales; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3756/12]
The Deputy's question refers to the commitment in the programme for Government to sell non-strategic State assets with a view to generating resources to fund additional investment in job creation initiatives in the economy. As I have told the House in response to previous questions, this will be done over time, when market conditions are right and in a manner that allows time to implement necessary regulatory reforms and ensure value is secured and fire sales are avoided. The Government has no intention of engaging in fire sales in this area. As I have indicated, good progress was made in discussions during the troika's recent mission. However, the Government has yet to agree the overall scale and composition of the programme to be pursued. In making its decision it will take account of any necessary regulatory, policy, legislative or financial considerations. These factors will, in turn, determine the timescale over which the programme will be implemented. The House will be fully briefed on the matter when the Government makes a decision.
It sounds like a good decision. The Government has essentially decided to put the whole process on the long finger. The Minister put it more nicely. Policy issues have been introduced.
Does the Deputy agree with our approach?
There will be no fire sales and regulatory matters are to be examined. Obviously, the European Union has a big role to play in that regard. It sounds as if the Government jumped the fence very quickly. The Minister agreed with his Fine Gael colleagues that the Labour Party should be bullied into selling off the ESB, Coillte and several other semi-State bodies. I am delighted that the brake has been put on all parties in government by the EU regulatory frameworks in the energy sector, etc. That is very good and important. A figure of €2 billion was mentioned in the programme for Government with regard to the sale of State assets. Some of the Minister's colleagues said in this House that the troika was looking for €5 billion. However, the troika has made it clear that it does not have a particular view on the issue. Certain Ministers have engaged in serious bluffing about the demands of the troika which they said wanted the Government to achieve a certain figure from the sale of State assets. It now transpires that was not the case.
The Deputy will be familiar with the programme agreed by the last Government.
It included no figure.
It included no figure, but it stated the then Government would examine the sale of State assets on foot of the then unpublished McCarthy report. During our initial discussions with the troika it was pushing the issue of the sale of State assets. As I have indicated, it wanted the entire proceeds of any such sale to be used to retire debt. Under the programme for Government negotiated by the two parties in government, we came to an agreement that we would sell State assets to a value of €2 billion. We said we would seek to use the resources accruing to the State from these sales for the purposes of job creation. We also said we intended to use the vehicles we had designed for that purpose, including the NewERA concept, which we have now put in place, and the strategic investment fund. We further said we would have regard to the utilisation of residual funds from the National Pensions Reserve Fund for the purposes of job creation if there were robust proposals for doing this. That remains the position. Nobody has resiled from anything. We have done what we said we would do. We have taken great care to ensure any decisions we have made are in the national interest and represent value for money. There will be no fire sale. We will get value for the taxpayer. We will not damage the strategic interests of the State. I notice the Deputy sitting beside Deputy Sean Fleming is nodding. The strategic interests of the State were not to the fore when Eircom was sold some years ago. We have no intention of repeating that disastrous mistake. We need to have access to resources and funds for job creation and are determined to grow the economy. We will take the fiscal decisions necessary to ensure the 3% deficit target is reached by 2015.
Will the Minister confirm that no sale of semi-State companies, or shares in semi-State companies, will take place in this calendar year? Is it the case that the matter has been put on the long finger until 2013 or beyond?
No decision on the specifics has yet been taken by the Government which announced last September that it had decided to sell a minority shareholding in an integrated ESB. We have undertaken a proper analysis of that decosopm in regulatory and value for money terms. We have established a cross-departmental group, chaired jointly by the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, which has presented its report to us. As I indicated in response to Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, all of this will inform the Government's decision-making process.
The timetable is gone.