Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 1999

Vol. 2 No. 5

Estimates for Public Services, 1999.

Vote 3 - Department of the Taoiseach.

Vote 5 - Central Statistics Office.

Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General.

Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

I welcome the Taoiseach and his officials. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach, namely Vote 3, Department of the Taoiseach, Vote 5, Central Statistics Office, Vote 13, Office of the Attorney General, Vote 14, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Vote 18, Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The timetable for today's meeting will be circulated. It will allow for opening statements by the Minister, the Minister of State, the Opposition spokespersons and discussion on the votes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I invite the Taoiseach to make his opening statement. When he concludes I will invite the spokespersons for Fine Gael and Labour to make their statements allowing up to a maximum of ten minutes each.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for receiving the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach for 1999. I welcome the opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss the Estimates for my Department and the offices under its aegis.

I am accompanied by the Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Seamus Brennan, who will deal with matters relating to the Central Statistics Office. The Minister of State, Deputy Brennan, is also Chairman of the National Millennium Committee.

The activities outlined in the Estimate for my Department reflect the central role it plays in advancing the priorities of the Government. I will outline to the committee the key strategic issues and objectives which are being progressed during 1999. The situation in the North remains of paramount importance to the Government. I met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in the margins of the recent EU summit in Cologne. We agreed that we should concentrate all our efforts in a bid to break the current impasse on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Intensive rounds of negotiations involving the two Governments and all the pro-Agreement parties are getting under way. These discussions, which I expect will be ongoing up to 30 June, will be conducted at various levels under the overall supervision of the Prime Minister and myself and we will be directly involved during the closing stages.

The two Governments have been in touch with the parties in recent days regarding the detailed arrangements for the discussions. I had separate meetings this week with the First Minister designate, Mr. David Trimble, the Deputy First Minister designate, Mr. Seamus Mallon and the Sinn Féin President, Mr. Gerry Adams. I have also kept in touch by phone with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair. All the parties must approach the discussions in a positive and constructive spirit.

It is just over a year ago since the people, North and south, democratically expressed their overwhelming support for the Good Friday Agreement. The onus now is on all the parties to give effect to the will of the people, and in this regard, it is crucial that the implementation of all aspects of the Agreement proceed without further delay. An acceptable basis for a breakthrough can be achieved by 30 June. All sides need to be aware of the serious consequences of not reaching agreement on the outstanding issues by that deadline.

My Department is involved in supporting a range of projects which aim to promote commemoration and reconciliation in these islands. In subhead C, an amount of £800,000 is allocated for grants under the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988. Subhead E contains an allocation of £400,000 for commemoration initiatives.

Regarding the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, approximately £1.5 million was lodged to the Exchequer last year. To date, three grants amounting to almost £350,000 have been disbursed for projects relating to the Peace Park at Messines, the University of Liverpool and the Irish Peace Bell at Messines. In December last year, my Department advertised in the National, Northern Ireland and British newspapers inviting applications from organisations and/or individuals for funding for projects that promoted mutual understanding and reconciliation, or would sustain ventures/activities or promote the welfare of the Irish community in Britain.

In response to the advertisement, a total of 175 applications were received for projects totalling more than £16 million spanning a range of projects focussing inter alia on reconciliation, commemoration, welfare, research, Irish studies, heritage and culture. Of these, 59 applications were selected which best met the criteria for disbursement of the funds available. Included are a significant number containing cross community or cross tradition elements that provide opportunities for the Government to demonstrate, in a very practical way, the commitment made in the Good Friday Agreement to demonstrate respect for the different traditions on this island. All of the applicants have been notified of the outcome of their applications and it is intended that the grants will be disbursed from June onwards.

With regard to commemoration initiatives, it is envisaged that the allocation in subhead E will fund commemorations of different events or periods for which commemoration is appropriate or proposed from civil society. A grant of £25,000 has already been paid on foot of a commitment given by President McAleese in Australia last year, with my Department's agreement, to assist towards the cost of a famine memorial at Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney. A further £53,200 has been allocated to three projects with a strong commemorative dimension - The Cost of the Troubles Study, £24,000, The Royal Dublin Fusiliers, £24,000 and the Military Heritage of Ireland, £9,200. It is anticipated that these funds will be disbursed shortly.

Funding has been set aside for the Dunbrody project. The viability of this project is the subject of a consultant's report which is currently in preparation. A number of other applications have been received or are known to be contemplated for support for commemorative activities. These applications will be considered for funding in due course.

An amount of £80,000 has been allocated in subhead D. This is primarily intended to allow for the contingency of meetings and printing requirements of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. At this point, all of our focus is wholly concentrated on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The question of future meetings of the forum will be kept under review.

Turning to economic and social policy, my Department continues to play a leading role in the implementation of Partnership 2000, principally through quarterly review meetings, detailed progress reports for consideration by the social partners and proactive engagement as appropriate on particular problems or concerns which arise from time to time. As indicated by the most recent progress report, which is available in the Library, Partnership 2000 continues to be thoroughly and systematically implemented across a wide range of priority issues. Important developments of note include the progress made in the areas of personal taxation, particularly in the last budget, in job creation, in public service reform and in the key area of trade union recognition, where both IBEC and ICTU have formally approved the report of the high level group which was set up to deal with this issue. This agreed report represents a very significant breakthrough in this highly complex area, not least in terms of creating the necessary climate of goodwill to see us through the negotiations on a new partnership agreement later this year. My Department will be centrally involved, as on previous occasions, in these negotiations.

Ireland has come a long way since the first social partnership agreement was concluded in 1987 and the positive effects of these achievements on the lives of tens of thousands of our people should not be understated, particularly in the areas of employment creation and unemployment reduction. For example, the Quarterly National Household Survey results published recently show that the number of people in work passed the 1.5 million mark in the second half of last year, that the unemployment rate had reached its lowest level since records began and that the rate of long-term unemployment had fallen to 3.1 per cent, comparing very favourably with a rate of 10.4 per cent in April 1988.

These positive developments could not have happened without the pursuit of measured and consistent policies in the areas of personal incomes, fiscal management and monetary aims. Headline indicators in that regard include: growth rates, estimated at 8.5 per cent last year in GNP terms, which have placed Ireland at the top of the OECD growth league for the past four years; a national debt-GNP ratio of 52.1 per cent last year, compared to a ratio of 125 per cent 12 years ago; a current budget surplus of just over £2 billion last year as against a deficit of £1.18 billion in 1987; and an average annual inflation rate of only 2.8 per cent since 1987 compared to an equivalent rate of 11.7 per cent in the preceding decade.

Social partnership has made a key contribution to this radical transformation of our economy and society, not least because of the stability and consistencies which flow from the process. It will continue to be of crucial importance as we seek to address the new challenges of managing our success, of improving our competitiveness, of responding to globalisation and the emerging knowledge economy, and of deepening social cohesion which is essential to our economic and social well-being. The Government looks forward to a constructive engagement with the social partners in the period ahead as, together, we seek to meet these challenges successfully in the new millennium. To succeed, realism as well as determination will be required of all sides.

A key function of my Department is the development of national economic and social strategy. Subhead B of the Vote provides funding of £464,000 for the NESC, while subhead 1 provides a similar amount for the NESF. The NESC has since its foundation in 1973 has played a key role in this process and will, over the next few months, have a pivotal role to play in laying the foundations for a new partnership agreement. Since its foundation in 1993, the NESF has made a significant contribution to the formation of a wider national consensus on economic and social policy issues.

Subhead H provides funding of £415,000 for the National Centre for Partnership, which was established in May 1997 in accordance with Partnership 2000. If partnership is to be successful it must work at the level of each workplace, where management, unions and employees can work in harmony towards commonly agreed objectives. The aim of the centre is to foster, directly and indirectly, partnership arrangements, involving the acceptance of employees as stakeholders, which will secure the competitiveness, viability and prosperity of enterprises and the modernisation of public services.

The centre's work programme is being actively pursued with assistance from IBEC, ICTU and other relevant organisations. Making partnership work at the level of the workplace requires effort and commitment from all concerned and the role of the centre in facilitating the process is critical. Translating partnership from a concept to a reality will play an increasingly positive role in workplace arrangements and overall national development.

The Department of the Taoiseach has undertaken a co-ordinating role in relation to the International Financial Services Centre since its establishment in 1987. The IFSC clearing house group, chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, brings together representatives from the financial services industry with the relevant Departments and agencies. The IFSC has been a remarkable success. More than 6,500 people are now employed in the centre and associated back-office projects. The original Customs House docks site is almost fully developed and the 12 acre extension is currently under construction. Last March, following a review conducted by the IFSC clearing house group the Government adopted a Strategy for the Development of International Financial Services in Ireland. This seeks to build on the success of the IFSC. The clearing house group will now oversee implementation of this strategy and report back to Government at the end of the year.

Good progress continues to be made under the strategic management initiative, the programme of change in the public service. The SMI division of my Department plays a significant role in this process. As set out in Delivering Better Government, the key objective is the achievement of an excellent service for the Government and the public as customers and clients at all levels, building on the good service already provided at present.

The preparation of new statements of strategy by Departments and Offices was a key requirement of the Public Service Management Act, 1997. In July 1998, the Government decided that the statements of strategy should be built on through the divisional business planning process, through the devolution of authority and accountability under the Act and through the establishment of partnership committees under Partnership 2000. All Departments and Offices have now completed their strategy statements and the business planning process and devolution arrangements are nearing completion. Departments are required to produce an annual report on progress, as provided for under the Act.

The pursuit of quality customer service remains at the heart of the change programme. The quality customer service action plans of Departments and offices, launched towards the end of 1997, are now in operation. A system to monitor and benchmark progress across the Civil Service is currently being drawn up to ensure that the momentum is maintained in this important initiative.

In addition, the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, came into effect on 21 April 1998. A considerable effort has been put into preparing to meet the requirements of the Act which has resulted in major changes in the culture and practices of the Civil Service. Taken with the publication of the strategy statements, a new and unprecedented climate of openness and transparency in the conduct of official business has been created.

Apart from the new legislation I mentioned, until now most of the effort in the strategic management initiative has been devoted to developing proposals in the key areas of Delivering Better Government. The SMI implementation group, which is driving the change programme in the Civil Service, has prioritised four main areas for action this year. These are human resource management, financial management, information technology and regulatory reform. The all-party committee on SMI continues to monitor progress. It is funded from subhead M of the Vote.

The Estimate for my Department includes an allocation of £1 million under subhead J in respect of the McCracken tribunal and £4.65 million in subhead L in respect of the Moriarty tribunal. As Deputies will be aware, the McCracken tribunal completed its work in 1997. However, funds are provided in the 1999 Estimates for the payment of costs awarded by Mr. Justice McCracken to parties who appeared before the tribunal. To date, claims from 19 parties have been received. However, there is still a number of parties who were granted representation before the tribunal who have not yet claimed their costs and provision is made for this. It is not possible to say with any certainty when all claims for costs in relation to this tribunal will be received, given the previous experience of the beef and hepatitis C tribunals. The Moriarty tribunal, established in September 1997, is continuing its work. The legal challenges to the tribunal in the High Court and Supreme Court have inevitably delayed its work. The tribunal has held a number of public sittings and is also engaged in extensive research and investigative work.

The Estimates for my Department also include an allocation of £45,000 for the Territorial Employment Pacts, which will be matched by EU funding. An allocation of £250,000 has been made for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. The Estimate of the Office of the Attorney General, which provides for the operating costs of the office and includes a grant-in-aid for the Law Reform Commission, shows an increase over the 1998 outturn of £1.5 million. Key components of the increase are provision to fill vacancies in the office; normal upgrading and replacement of computer equipment; the provision of a new PABX for the office and provision to complete the first phase of the project to publish the Statute Book on CD-ROM, which will be available later this summer. In the case of the grant-in-aid to the Law Reform Commission, the increase is to meet the cost of the Commission's computerisation project and expenses related to the move to new premises.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions shows an increase over the 1998 outturn of approximately £1.1 million. The increase can be attributed in the main to the full year cost of an increase in fees to counsel arising from the March 1998 review of the fees structure applying to criminal cases coming before the courts. I welcome the first Annual Report of the Office of the DPP, which was published recently, and believe it will provide a useful and informative guide to all those interested in the workings of the office.

The Estimate for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor shows an increase over the 1998 outturn of £5.3 million approximately. This is accounted for in part by the increase in fees to counsel and other related costs associated with the large volume of Army deafness claims which were received in the past three years. While the number of new claims being received has decreased to about 100 a month, the costs of processing the 1997 and 1998 intakes are still being incurred. Specific provision has also been made for increases to local State solicitors arising from ongoing negotiations on the staff costs and expenses elements of their remuneration package.

Returning to my Department's Vote, subhead G provides funding of £550,000 for the Information Society Commission. The Information Society Commission has become one of the most important issues that we face at the end of the 20th century. It offers tremendous potential in the areas of economic growth and social inclusion, provided we act fast to embrace it. I am determined that Ireland should become a world-class location for electronic commerce. In January, I launched an action plan which sets out a framework of measures which Government and its agencies is taking to ensure implementation of the information society in a co-ordinated and comprehensive manner. The Information Society Commission will continue to play an important role as we move on with this implementation.

The high-tech world is constantly changing and new developments come on stream at unprecedented speed. It is vital that we keep abreast of these changes. The commission, which was established in 1997, is to continue to monitor and advise Government on the development of an information society in Ireland until the end of the year 2000. It published its second report in April last, highlighting e-commerce, awareness, adoption and access as priority areas for the coming year. The work of the Information Society Commission is an important illustration of the Government's firm commitment to the development of the information society in Ireland.

The largest allocation proposed in the 1999 Estimate for my Department is in respect of the millennium celebrations. The National Millennium Committee, chaired by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Séamus Brennan, was established at the end of last year. Its remit is to make recommendations on proposals of major national significance for inclusion in the Government's millennium programme and to recommend a system for supporting locally based millennium projects. The work of the National Millennium Committee is being supported by a small millennium office, which has been established within my Department. This office will also be responsible for the co-ordination of the Government's overall millennium programme.

A total of £30 million of Exchequer funding is being made available through my Department's Vote for suitable millennium projects over the period 1999 and 2000. Out of this total, the sum of £14.9 million has been provided for in subhead M in 1999. The intention is that the millennium funding will lever out further matching funding for projects from the corporate and private sectors.

There has been a very large response to the public invitation to submit millennium projects with more than 550 project proposals received. The millennium committee is making excellent progress and has, to date, made recommendations on awards from the millennium fund of more than £5 million. The millennium committee is continuing to examine proposals and will make further recommendations on funding over the coming months.

The advent of a new millennium is a very special benchmark in the history of civilisation. Irish people have a huge interest in marking the millennium in a special way. In addition to the many celebrations which will take place all over the country, there is a very strong feeling that this event should be commemorated in a visionary, dignified and lasting way which provides every community in the country the opportunity of participation.

As we approach the new millennium, we can reflect on enormous achievements in all areas of national life in recent years. The Government is committed to continue to work to consolidate and build on those achievements. My Department, and the offices under its aegis, will continue to make a significant contribution to the Government's work in that regard. I therefore commend these Estimates to the committee.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Séamus Brennan, and ask him to make his statement to the committee.

The Central Statistics Office is responsible for the collection, processing and dissemination of official statistics on economic and social conditions in Ireland. While the main focus is on the statistical requirements of Government, there is a wide community of users nationally such as the social partners, the various public bodies, business interests, universities, research institutes and the general public. There is also a significant international dimension to the work of the office and that is increasing these days, particularly in relation to statutory obligations arising from our membership of the EU. Net expenditure in 1998 amounted to £15.053 million. The 1999 net Estimate allocation is £18.462 million.

In addition to its regular activities, such as the monthly consumer price index, the business statistics programme and the Quarterly National Household Survey, the CSO carries out a number of periodic census and surveys which have a cyclical impact on its expenditure. The 1999 allocation includes a provision for two such surveys: the Household Budget Survey and a pilot survey in relation to the Census of Population. The Household Budget Survey will commence in June 1999 and continue up to June 2000. A pilot survey on the census will be held in September 1999 in preparation for the Census of Population in 2001. Preparatory work will commence in September 1999 in relation to the complete census of agriculture, which will be undertaken in the year 2000. The number of staff employed provided for in the CSO's 1999 Vote is approximately 587. This figure includes staff recruited for the Household Budget Survey.

This year the CSO is celebrating its 50th anniversary. With effect from 1 June 1949, the statistics department of the Government, which had been attached to the then Department of Industry and Commerce, was transferred to the Taoiseach's Department and set up as the Central Statistics Office. It is interesting to note that even then this change was driven by the needs of domestic and international co-operation and expansion. I take this opportunity to congratulate the office and its staff on its achievements to date and thank them for 50 years of service to the State.

I will not comment on the National Millennium Committee unless there are questions on it as the Taoiseach dealt with that matter.

I welcome the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and all the officials to the committee. I thank them for the full briefing material which we received. I will follow the general policy issues outlined in the Taoiseach's speech and comment briefly on them. I will address particular aspects of the Estimates by way of question rather than in my introductory remarks.

I am glad the Taoiseach assured us that every step will be taken to find the solution to the Northern Ireland problems and that he and the Prime Minister Mr. Blair will be involved in this right up to 30 June. We can assure him that he has the support of all parties in the House in trying to seek a solution. It is a great pity that 25 years after the Sunningdale Agreement, which in many ways was a more advanced agreement than the Good Friday Agreement, the process of establishing an administration in Northern Ireland is falling into difficulties which are similar in many ways to those which undermined the Sunningdale Agreement. The opportunity then was not grasped by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Consequently there has been murder, mayhem, tragedy and sorrow for 25 years after an acceptable political solution was available. It seems to me it would be a tragedy of enormous proportions if the Agreement now in place could not be implemented. It is vitally important that everybody's mandate is recognised and an Executive is formed at the earliest possible date. I wish the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister every success in their contacts with the parties in Northern Ireland in seeking to put a northern administration in place and to take another major step in implementing the Good Friday Agreement.

I want the Taoiseach to comment on something to which he did not refer in his introductory remarks in respect of Northern Ireland. Will he give an assurance to the committee that, in his opinion, Sinn Féin and the IRA are acting in good faith in their contacts with the Commission on the disappeared? I presume he has received certain assurances from the former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson. Will he share them with the House because there is a view being expressed now that Sinn Féin may not have acted in good faith in respect of the search for the bodies of the disappeared? This is a great tragedy. It is something which has brought sorrow into many homes, but it is also a wider political issue. As we have seen from the digging in various parts of the Republic, the enormity of the tragedy is taking on a gruesome appearance. There is great concern that the Garda authorities, who have the unpleasant task of searching for the bodies of the disappeared, may not have the best possible information. We would like some assurances about that.

The Taoiseach commented on the Celtic tiger and the benefits of the growing economy. There are also enormous difficulties and there is an emerging gap now between the health of the statistical and official economy and the actual lifestyle of the people living in this country. There are a number of issues which must be addressed.

The health services have seriously deteriorated in the past two years. There are two health systems. There is an excellent health service for the 40 per cent of the population with private health insurance but there is an extremely bad health service for public health patients. The measure of the efficacy of public health policy is the length of the waiting lists. Between March 1997 and March 1999, the public waiting lists have increased by 20 per cent and by a bigger percentage in the Dublin hospitals. This is not acceptable against the background of the wealth which is now being created and the huge revenues which are flowing into the Exchequer.

The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, operates frequently on the basis of favouritism and grudges. He is not operating evenly in respect of certain hospitals. In the regional hospital in Limerick, a state of the art paediatric unit which cost a great deal of money was completed in March but funding has not been provided in the Estimate to open it and there is not any commitment to fund its opening in the year 2000. An accident and emergency department at the hospital is due to be completed this month but funding has not been included in the Estimate to facilitate its opening.

It is not acceptable, against the background of the statistics to which the Taoiseach referred, that such facilities should lie idle due to a lack of funding. There are emerging grievances in other parts of the country that various hospitals are not being treated on an even handed basis and that the Minister is playing favourites with other institutions. If the Taoiseach makes cursory inquiries with his party's backbenchers, he will be made aware of the situation to which I refer.

I am glad the Taoiseach has reinforced the Government's commitment to social partnership. This has been a very forward looking initiative and we have reaped great rewards from it. However, as more of the levers of policy are transferred to Brussels, I suggest that a more sophisticated model of social partnership will be necessary for the next round of negotiations. If what European bankers and economists refer to as an "asymmetric shock" were to hit our economy, with the exception of labour force initiatives, we have virtually no lever of policy left at our disposal which would act as a corrective mechanism. On the bottom line, such a shock will lead to significant and rapid redundancies. A series of buffer initiatives must be built into the model which can be implemented in certain circumstances but not in others so that the first line of pressure will not target those at work but will focus rather on the additional awards that might be paid to people at work in certain circumstances and which, in other circumstances, would fall out of the agreement.

The Taoiseach is an experienced negotiator and I am sure he knows precisely what I have in mind. Given that the possibility of the Government taking corrective action here at a macro-economic level has been removed, there is a danger that in the event of an asymmetric shock our competitive position will deteriorate to the point where the only corrective action will come in the form of serious redundancies in those industries which are leading our export drive.

The Taoiseach is aware that on at least three occasions the Government of the day has restored Irish competitiveness through successful devaluations. Former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, made such a devaluation in 1986 while serving as Minister for Finance, the current Taoiseach did so as Minister for Finance in 1994 and the current Minister for Finance, when he decided to peg the initial rate of Ireland's entry to the euro at about 20 points below the then traded value of the Irish punt at the time, also effectively devalued the currency. An accidental devaluation has been taking place in recent months with the weakness of the euro internationally giving us a competitive advantage in our trade with the rest of the world. However, these options no longer remain. We need a more sophisticated model of social partnership which will have to include more than commitments in respect of pay increases and tax reductions and social commitments.

The International Financial Services Centre is designated by geographic area simply because the 10 per cent tax regime which applied to financial services did not apply outside the centre or the Shannon industrial zone. Now that the generality of corporation tax is being moved to 12.5 per cent there is no reason that financial services companies could not situate their operations at any location in the State while enjoying the same tax benefits. Is it still the Government's policy to continue to promote the north quays in Dublin as the sole location for financial services or will the entire country be promoted in that way given that the same tax regime will apply across the board?

I do not believe the claimed advances in public service reform have occurred. One of the most obvious things an outsider would perceive in the Irish economy is that, in terms of the efficiency of its management, the public sector has not kept pace with the private sector. The responsibility to correct this rests on the shoulders of the Taoiseach, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance and senior management officials in Government Departments. There is not any tangible evidence that the service is becoming more efficient or that the reforms announced in the initiatives are being put in place in a way which gives citizens, the ultimate consumers, the feel-good feeling to which the Taoiseach referred.

What arrangements is the Taoiseach making for the appointment of the new DPP, given that Mr. Barnes has announced his retirement? Will the new DPP be appointed by the Public Appointments Commission or the Local Appointments Commission, will he or she be appointed on the system analogous to the appointment of judges or will the Government make a decision on the appointment without any process?

I welcome the Taoiseach and the Minister of State. I do not believe it was the practice of the majority of the Taoiseach's predecessors to take the Estimates through committee and I commend him for doing so.

I wish to resume where Deputy Noonan concluded in posing a number of questions on public service reform. The Taoiseach referred to human resource management, financial management, IT and regulatory reform. It would be useful to consider a number of these areas and perhaps there is no better place to begin than the process in which we are engaged at this meeting.

When he was first elected, Deputy Fleming arrived at our initial meeting to discover that we were debating the Estimates and assumed that they referred to the following year. The reality is that we are discussing money that has already been wholly committed and largely spent. To many Members this is a largely pointless exercise. There is a need to debate the Estimates when they are still in some way relevant and certainly before the money is already spent. It is the prerogative of the Government to spend taxpayers' money and no one, even if they wanted, could remove that power. However, the system would be more meaningful if debates on the Estimates took place when the budget is published. At the moment we cannot change this decision because legally we do not have the power and we cannot affect it in any way because, in most instances, the money has already been spent.

That brings me to consider the public service management system. I had the opportunity to read some of the correspondence which emanated from the Department of Finance last year on the system of financial envelopes to which the Government committed itself. Effectively, this system has fallen apart. The Department decided not to proceed on the basis that an agreement to succeed Partnership 2000 was being negotiated and that financial envelopes could not be agreed in such circumstances.

There will always be some reason for not agreeing financial envelopes. I do not want to over simplify this issue or underestimate the difficulty in agreeing a system of that kind which runs contrary to the way we operated in the past. I am open to correction, but it has been stated in the past that financial envelopes are an important part of any multi-annual budgeting system. The failure of the Government to deliver on financial envelopes in the current year - I would wager that it will not deliver on them next year - is a severe setback for the SMI system and one from which the Government will find it difficult to recover.

In terms of the practical implications of SMI for most civil servants, I am again open to correction, but I believe that little progress has been made in agreeing performance management systems and performance related pay for everyone other than the highest ranking civil servants. That is a great pity. Until such time as a system is put in place which includes performance related pay for many civil servants, the system will creak under its own weight and will not deliver to the public the quality service which the Taosieach has quite rightly been talking about. How are negotiations going with the trade unions on those issues?

He briefly mentioned regulatory reform. It is a huge issue into which I do not intend to go, but I am not sure we know what we are doing. We should look to put a system in place where the Dáil and the Cabinet clearly formulate policy, which is implemented by regulators. The edges have been blurred and some regulators who have been appointed clearly believe they are formulating policy and do not wish to be accountable as we wish, for example, to the Dáil. We do not have the clarity of approach to this which we should have.

On Partnership 2000, there is general consensus in the House on the issue, which, perhaps, is a reflection of the process itself, but its importance should not be underestimated because it will be needed in the coming months. Many workers still regard partnership agreements as essentially pay deals. In particular, those in the public service see that a great deal more money is available and they are reluctant to be constrained in a way with which they were quite happy ten years ago. However, many workers in the private sector have always had doubts about the value of partnership agreements.

We must be clear about what is involved. We are no longer talking about a way of getting ourselves out of a crisis, which was the case ten years ago, but a means of corporate governance of the economy. I am not sure that the groundwork has been done for that. One needs to have an understanding in particular enterprises and workplaces that this is the way the economy is run. People must identify with it as a means of doing things. We must take it out of Government buildings and bring it to the ordinary workplace. The Centre for Partnership is engaged in trying to develop means of doing that but I wonder whether the necessary progress has been made to deliver another agreement. I have serious doubts as to whether we will be able to deliver a further agreement at this stage.

I concur entirely with the remarks of the Taoiseach and Deputy Noonan on Northern Ireland. Obviously, we wish the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs well in their search for a solution before the deadline. It is not helpful for us to seek to put pressure on certain parties to the Agreement. However, Sinn Féin did respectably well here in the recent local elections and with a democratic mandate for participation in the democratic process comes certain duties. It is not sufficient just to rely on the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. There is a political responsibility beyond that to make the Agreement work and acknowledge the political realities which are preventing it from working. I hope sincerely that the Sinn Féin leadership will grasp those responsibilities and jump together with David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists in the weeks ahead.

Unfortunately, the big issue in relation to the "disappeared", is that the families have waited since early April and believed that the legislation, which was passed in the Oireachtas and in Westminster, would return the bodies of their loved ones for Christian burial. Regrettably, that has only happened in one case. My information is based on that provided to me by the Victims Commission, intermediaries and the Garda. It is still their collective view that the information given to them was given in good faith, but it was patchy. It did not give precise enough details, including the follow up information from the intermediaries, to whom a great deal of information has been given. I am not aware of all the information but know from talking to various people that a great deal of information was provided. The passage of time and other difficulties are still creating problems for the Garda. There has been confirmation of the location of the sites in some cases, but not all, and that is why the excavations have continued in the hope that the information will locate the bodies and allow the burials to take place. It is heart rending.

I understand that there has been confirmation.

Information has come back through the intermediaries. They are the link to the commission. They have continued to try to obtain information from republican sources.

Is the Taoiseach saying there has been confirmation of the locations?

At least in a number of cases. There is probably a fair certainty that this information is coming from sources as good as any which are available but it has not been of assistance. The commission will probably make a statement in due course but I am not sure when. The former Tánaiste was at the locations today and the Garda have continued to work closely with the commission and the intermediaries to try and find these locations.

It is proving to be very harrowing for everybody, particularly, for the families. I was in Belfast during the week that the information emerged. If there can be jubilation at news of trying to find peoples' graves, there was. People were just satisfied that this would bring an end to the saga, but it certainly has not and that is the bad part of it. When I met the president of Sinn Féin, I pressed him again. Sinn Féin should do all it can to make sure that the information has certainty in so far as it can have certainty and it is doing that.

In my long experience of the health service, I have not known a time when there was not a crisis with waiting lists and other issues. An additional £600 million, which is a substantial amount, has been allocated in the past two budgets. There has been a doubling of health expenditure in recent years with an enormous allocation of resources but there are still difficulties. However, there is an extremely good story to tell about the improvement of services, staffing and equipment. Equally, there are still huge demands. Deputy Noonan raised questions which I will certainly bring to the attention of the Minister, particularly those relating to the paediatric unit in Limerick.

I thank the Deputies for their remarks on social partnership. It has been very good. I agree with Deputy Noonan that it is evolving. It has changed since 1987 through Programme for National Recovery , PESP, PCW and Partnership 2000 and we must always look at innovative ways to develop it. Some suggestions which were made are useful. There is a difference of emphasis, as always, between the public service and the private sector. That is not unusual. The public service unions were pro-agreement in 1987 while the private sector was very opposed to it because it believed strongly that it would lead to bogus productivity claims; announcements that would not work; and the relatively low pay agreements that were mentioned would be absolutely breached. However, the private sector was wrong.

With regard to PESP, at the end of 1990 trade unions were sceptical and employers were desperate to have it because they had seen how successful the previous agreement was. The third time around, for the PCW, both were sceptical because both sides said that there was sustainable growth but employment was not generated in the same way. However, employment growth has been seen now. Both Deputies made suggestions and they are probably right. I hope people see the merits. Obviously the protagonists against the agreement will always cite the negatives. They cannot ignore the fact that under consecutive Governments, which effectively included all political parties over that 12 year period, including this year, the economy has doubled. There has been a 100 per cent increase since 1987. The number of people employed has risen from one million to more than one and a half million. We have had five or six years of extremely high growth which is still respectable in European terms. There are far more resources for other initiatives. At the same time, there has been a substantive rise in take home pay and the standard of living, under any criteria - domestic, European or international. The leadership of the various social partnerships can take pride in this. I recently attended a round of detailed discussions with the social partners on the national development plan. They are focusing not just on pay terms but on broader issues. Individual members tend to think of the bottom line in their considerations, as Deputy McDowell said.

As regards the location of financial services, Deputy Noonan knows I tried hard when I was Minister for Finance to get them to locate here and failed in many cases. Deputy Noonan is right about tax. Tomorrow I will address a conference in Dublin Castle which will discuss the future of financial services. There is a view that there is benefit in centralising the sector, not just on the North Quay - lest I be accused of favouring the northside - as there is probably more room for scope on the South Quay, but in a general area. Many of those involved from the start have said we should guard against the financial services sector moving out which would be a terrible mistake that could undermine it. I will be interested to hear some of the views tomorrow on how that can be done because it cannot be done under a fiscal arrangement.

As regards the collegiate view of the committees, how they have operated, developed and seeded new initiatives, the relative closeness is of benefit. However, as regards back office developments it does not matter. With modern technology, there is a great deal to be said for back office developments being located in rural areas. I have attended presentations and briefings on the work of the Information Society Commission, a very dynamic group which serves the State. Its view is that back office developments should be kept away from the center because with modern technology they can effectively be located anywhere. Back offices provide very good employment and there is no reason they should be centralised. Perhaps some of the hard core financial personnel should be in the center. I will listen to what they have to say tomorrow.

I do not agree with the Deputy about the organisation of SMI. Practically all the growth has taken place in the private sector. The public sector remains the size it was in the mid 1980s, if not smaller. There has been a great deal of change. I remember when I wondered if we would ever introduce technology, even basic PCs, to the public service. However, an enormous change has taken place in its style, management and flexibility of planning. A great deal remains to be done. However, its role has changed radically since I was a Minister, especially the way it identifies itself, prepares plans and the way staff engage in such matters. However, there are difficulties. For example, there is a high turnover of staff in my Department, moving out and up. Even in my office I seem to be thanking a great number of staff for their services rendered as they are promoted. They are being headhunted and are being made very attractive offers to move on. That is not a bad thing - I am not against anyone taking opportunities. However, there is systematic targeting, down to clerical staff. That is because they are good quality staff. This is affecting the public service.

I am sure the committee is familiar with how far down the list the Civil Service Commission has to go before it recruits staff. The number of people who applied for the last round of positions was about a third of those who applied five years ago. This has slowed down development. However, the implementation group which comprises senior officials is one of many good initiatives. I accept we have not achieved as much as we would like and we may be behind in the programme.

The discussions on performance related pay started in January and have been continuing intensively with an open agenda. I am not certain of what we will achieve but there is an open agenda and the Government is not working from a fixed position. We must try to introduce some kind of performance related pay. Hopefully those discussions will result in some recommendations. We cannot do the same as the private sector - we cannot give share options etc. However, we can provide some measures.

Deputy Noonan asked about the filling of the post of DPP, which will happen this summer. Under the 1974 Act, it will be a statutory committee. I have already asked the Chief Justice to move on the establishment of this committee. The post has been advertised and the committee will make the selection and then recommend it to Government. It is a fully independent process which should be completed by the end of July. I cannot recall who comprises the committee, but they all have statutory roles. Under the 1974 Act, one of those I asked to serve on the committee was the senior law officer answerable to the Attorney General. He recently informed me he will be a candidate so he will not be able to sit on the committee. In his place I have nominated the secretary general of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The present DPP has done an excellent job and I thank him for that, as I recently did at Question Time. He has been in the position since 1975. As part of the development of the position, it will be a seven year term, in line with other posts.

What is the statutory obligation of the committee? Will it recommend one person or a list of people for the position?

I think the legislation obliges it to recommend three. I understand it will give that list in order of merit. As I said in the House, the Government should not take a role in the selection of candidates. There are five senior people on the committee and I would not contemplate a role for Government, other than accepting the recommendations.

It is an honour for committee members to have the Taoiseach present for the Estimate. He mentioned that the first annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions was published recently. I welcome that and am delighted to see it. Are similar reports published by the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? If not, perhaps the Taoiseach would suggest that they do so. This is especially the case for the Chief State Solicitor's office because it would be good to see a report on its work on a county by county basis.

As the offices of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor work closely together, would it be more efficient if they were one office because they are essentially involved in similar work? I understand Mr. Nally is preparing a report on this area. Would the offices work more efficiently if both were combined?

Some £1.352 million has been provided in respect of legal fees for Army deafness claims. This matter must be solved and I would rather that happened sooner rather than later. When settlements are deferred indefinitely, the cost to the Exchequer increases enormously. The sooner the matter is concluded the better.

I note the Deputy's last point and the Minister for Defence is making every effort in that regard.

The Attorney General's annual report includes the Chief State Solicitor's annual report. I thank the Deputy for his remarks concerning the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It has been very useful and we have received much comment on the statistics contained in it. It helps explain matters to the public and clears up misunderstandings about the role of the DPP.

Mr. Nally, the former Secretary to the Government, has informed me that the report on the unification of the two offices will be completed at the end of June.

The Irish community in Britain is something in which I am very interested and I have had a great deal of contact with various associations in the area over the years. It is felt that it has been neglected by various Governments. I welcome the moves which have been made. What future plans are there under this heading?

I hope there will be a fair distribution of moneys to millennium projects. I know the quality of applications will have to be considered. Nonetheless, I hope there will be an equitable spread of funding throughout the country.

Like my colleagues, I am concerned about the efforts to find the bodies of victims of the IRA. It is a heart rending experience for all concerned. I know that, now the authorities here have taken on the job, they must see it to a conclusion. However, it is an extraordinarily sad situation.

I welcome the Estimates.

The Díon grants, which the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment announced today, are the traditional grants given to agencies working with the Irish in Britain. The amount has increased over the years. The grants are very important not only in terms of the funding which goes to various organisations and bodies but also because they are used as leverage to obtain funding from councils in Britain. They have helped in that regard over the 14 or 15 years they are in existence and they have also assisted the development of projects to help the homeless and the aged Irish. We have also used a substantial portion of the money from the soldiers' and sailors' trust fund in this area. However, that is a once-off and unfortunately cannot be used again. The legislation of 1988 negotiated between Lord Killanin and the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garrett FitzGerald, specified that we could use the trust fund for that purpose.

I presented the grants to the various organisations in London about six weeks ago and it gave me an opportunity to meet all the Irish organisations. They were very grateful for the grants. However, as Deputy Belton said, it is not so much the money that is important, rather that they are not forgotten. The money is not the be-all and end-all, it is the recognition which is important. I record our gratitude for the enormous amount of work done by these organisations and agencies, many of which are staffed by people who are not Irish citizens. They make a huge effort in working with Irish voluntary bodies. We are very grateful for the work they do for Irish citizens in Britain and for second and third generation Irish people. The focus of the organisations now is on the aged Irish. I do not suggest the problem of ten years ago is gone, but the focus is on the aged Irish who pose a significant problem.

The National Millennium Committee has instituted a scheme called the millennium community awards scheme and has allocated £2 million to it. We have asked the assistance of Area Development Management Limited in processing applications because there are hundreds of them. The upper limit is about £75,000. We have asked ADM to recommend a minimum of 100 and to ensure they are geographically spread so that every community will benefit. The Deputy is right to draw attention to that and we will continue to monitor it.

I thank the Minister of State.

While this may not be specific to the Taoiseach's Estimates or Department, perhaps he could tell us how matters stand with the cross-Border bodies. Are they completely in abeyance or has preparatory work proceeded? Has a structure been put in place? How is that being financed? Does it come from the Departments participating in the bodies?

The allocation of £4.6 million for the tribunals, which I understand from supporting documentation is to cover the fees of counsels to the tribunals and administration costs, seems very high. Am I right in assuming it does not cover the fees of parties represented at the tribunal?

Do the NESC and the NESF share premises and staff? The Taoiseach has previously expressed the view that the NESF does a worthwhile job in its own right, but it seems the two bodies are heading inexorably towards amalgamation. Perhaps the Taoiseach would share his thoughts on that with us.

We have proceeded with work on the cross-Border bodies and I discussed them this week with Séamus Mallon who, as Deputy First Minister, has taken on much of the work in this area . We cannot finalise anything until everything is settled. However, following the agreement of the House, we worked on the operation of the bodies, possible locations for them and the interrelation between them. We have proceeded on the basis that they will be up and running. They are very well advanced. We have considered appointing people but we have not gone ahead with that yet.

The regional authorities?

Yes. We have lost time on this but an amount of work has gone ahead. We cannot move on the other matters until this is done.

The tribunal's expenditure to date this year is £711,000, which principally covers the cost of administrative and legal staff at the tribunal as well as the normal overheads. Legal fees to the parties granted representation at the tribunal will await the judge's determination.

Is that included in the estimate of £4.6 million?

What about the NESF?

The NESF and NESC have moved into the same building and they are to co-operate and share resources, though they will still have their strategic positions. The NESC will continue with the overview and strategic planning, while the NESF will evaluate the work done. The fact that they are together and will be put on a statutory basis will assist in the movement of staff. Hopefully the Bill will be before the House in the autumn.

There were some difficulties under the PCW regarding the parity of public service pensions.

I thought we raised this matter yesterday with the Minister for Finance.

Yes. I am raising it with the Taoiseach in the context of social partnership arrangements. The Taoiseach dedicated quite a proportion of his speech to social partnership and this is an important issue in that context. There were some difficulties under the PCW regarding the parity of public service pensions. The Taoiseach will recall that in the run-up to the last election he made a commitment on behalf of his party to restore pension parity. The outgoing Government made the same commitment and then the ways and means were worked out with a committee of congress, the Department of Finance and the public service in the course of the summer of 1997. It has now re-emerged and there is a widespread belief in the trade unions representing public servants that elements of any new pay agreement which rely on productivity will not be used in calculating public service pensions subsequently. Retired public servants can no longer take it for granted that their maximum pensions will be 50 per cent of their current salary applicable to the particular grade. We raised this with the Minister for Finance yesterday and his initial remarks only added to the confusion before he then pulled back halfway. The Taoiseach should address this issue and give the answers required. There is a cat out of the bag here and it is running beyond the Government's policy.

I heard reports about what the Minister for Finance said yesterday. This commitment was given and the discussions began on it practically immediately. Agreement was reached and the payments were made. The agreement was based on the arrangements made in line with the long standing understanding of parity and fairly large sums of money were paid. I have seen some of the letters and studied the issues raised, particularly during the recent European and local elections. If there are issues to be raised by public service unions they will have to be dealt with in the talks, but the commitment as per the understanding reached at the time was agreed and different issues are being raised now.

Was it agreement in principle to parity along the traditional lines or was it simply an agreement to sort out the parity difficulties arising from the PCW?

I think existing arrangements are in line with the long standing understanding on parity. That is my understanding of the matter. I met some of the groups involved in this matter some years ago and I met the trade unions after that. The payments were based on that agreement and were widely welcomed. However, Deputy Noonan is correct in saying that separate issues are now being raised. I have seen letters making the same point that if there are any productivity arrangements made in the future, then those productivity savings that people might give up should be passed on in full to pensioners. That seems to be what they or the trade unions are now seeking on their behalf. I have seen letters sent by the Minister for Finance to the unions and some of the other associations that have raised this matter and I will discuss it with him.

When is the final report expected from the all-party committee on the Constitution?

I thank Deputy Foley for raising that matter and the committee for its work in this area. It has done an enormous amount of work and we have had two comprehensive reports. We are now working with them to see if we can have an omnibus referendum on some of the issues they have brought up which are not very controversial. We have seen more amendments in the last two years than in the previous 20 years. We had a major constitutional amendment to local government recently, even if there was some confusion about it. We have now incorporated local government into the Constitution, which is good, and we have also dealt with the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. We also had the Good Friday Agreement as well as the Amsterdam Treaty. There has been substantial work in this area but the committee has highlighted matters such as the gender-neutral issue which it would like to put in an omnibus referendum. We must try to put a programme together on this and we will attempt to do so during the year.

I appeal to the Taoiseach to intervene with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to bring some common sense to the licensing laws and not to wait until the autumn to do so. I do not know why we cannot extend the opening hours by one hour. This is an issue in which the public is very interested. The Taoiseach has been known to take the odd pint in my constituency and, while I do not know his views, I could speculate that they might be close to my own. I hope he intervenes to ensure we can do something sensible this side of the summer.

On a half serious and half light hearted note, I might have to take soundings in Deputy McDowell's area to see if residents would appreciate having traffic going through their area an hour later.

We should pursue this matter when the cameras are not on me.

I thank the committee for facilitating me and for the remarks on Northern Ireland. I appreciate the support from Fine Gael and Labour colleagues in trying to resolve that matter. I thank them for their support.

Top
Share