Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Thursday, 6 May 2004

Vote 14 — Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Revised).

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates of the Taoiseach's group of Votes. A draft timetable for the meeting was circulated with the agenda. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. There will be an opening statement from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, followed by opening statements from Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Technical Group in that order. There will then be a general discussion to be followed by the Minister of State's concluding remarks. The meeting will conclude at 4 p.m. at the latest. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I reiterate the remarks I made at the commencement of the committee's debate on the Department of Finance Estimates that it is the committee's clear view that this process is a waste of time. I say that without implying disrespect to the Minister of State or the members of the committee. The Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service finds it an absolutely unsatisfactory way to conduct parliamentary business to discuss the 2004 Estimates on 6 May when half the money has already been spent and the other half is well and truly committed. The committee is of the view that in every organisation, public or private, a debate of this kind should take place in November or December of the preceding year, possibly at budget time and after the publication of the original Book of Estimates. The Abridged Estimates Volume published earlier this year is 99% the same document as the original Book of Estimates. As there has been very little change, it is not useful to have a debate at this time.

Consideration of the manner in which committees deal with Estimates has been included in the work programme of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. We expect to present a report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and will ask it to consider the manner in which the matter is dealt with in future. The issue has implications for every committee of the Oireachtas. That said, we will proceed with consideration of the Taoiseach's group of Estimates.

On 26 February, the Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for public services, inter alia, be referred to the committee for further consideration: Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach, Vote 3 — Office of the Attorney General, Vote 4 — Central Statistics Office, Vote 13 — Office of the Chief State Solicitor and Vote 14 — Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I thank the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, and her officials for attending to assist the committee in its consideration of the Estimates.

I apologise at the outset for the absence of the Taoiseach. Members are aware that he has EU Presidency commitments and is travelling these days. On his behalf, I thank the committee for its flexibility and understanding in arranging today's meeting, the purpose of which is to discuss the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach and associated offices.

The activities outlined in the Estimates for the Department reflect the central role it plays in advancing the Government's priorities. Today, I will outline to the committee the key objectives and projects which will be progressed during 2004. Work is continuing to secure the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. For this to be achieved, it is essential that all of the parties, particularly those now in a position of leadership in their communities, play their part. The issues are clear. There must be an end to paramilitarism and there must be inclusive government. In the period ahead, both Governments will intensify their contacts with the parties. With the necessary political will, trust and confidence can be restored and a democratic accommodation between Nationalists and Unionists can be secured and sustained.

In addition to providing the necessary support on Northern Ireland generally and underpinning our efforts to secure the objectives outlined, the Department's Northern Ireland division is responsible for a number of subheads in the Estimates before us. The amount of €50,000 in subhead D of the 2004 Vote is a contingency provision to cover costs associated with any meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which may be convened throughout the year. An allocation of €63,000 is provided in subhead E to fund commemoration initiatives for periods or events for which commemoration is appropriate or proposed from civil society. There is an allocation of €250,000 in subhead L to allow the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings to complete its work.

The European and international affairs division of the Department supports the Taoiseach's representation of Ireland in his roles as a member of the European Council and Head of Government. The division collaborates closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments to promote Ireland's interests in EU and international policy formulation. The co-ordination of a successful input and outcome from Ireland's Presidency of the European Union is the central priority of this division in 2004. The Department aims to ensure that Ireland is an effective chair and progresses the wide range of issues on the European agenda, including the successful transition to an enlarged Union. It is also aimed to ensure the effective and efficient conduct of the business of the enlarged Union.

Other key objectives being prioritised include progress in the Intergovernmental Conference to give impetus to the ten year economic reform goals set out at Lisbon in March 2000 and, in the area of external relations, the search for mutual solutions to the many difficult issues confronting us on the world stage. This is a demanding and complex agenda and we seek to work with determination to serve Europe well. We wish to demonstrate that while ours is a small state, we can be effective.

Since its launch in October 2001, the National Forum on Europe has established itself as an independent space where public representatives and civil society can debate the important European issues of the day, their impact on Ireland and its citizens and, in particular, the future of Europe. Its policy of holding regional meetings on a regular basis provides an opportunity for the public to express their views and raise issues of concern with guest speakers and participants at the forum.

The forum has encouraged full participation by all interested parties and promoted a wider public debate and a clearer understanding of the key issues involved in that debate. Its success is evidenced by recent surveys which have shown an increasing awareness of European issues among the public. The current sense of all the parties participating in the forum is that it continues to provide a valuable service for the body politic and the public, that the issues it is debating are of the utmost importance to Ireland and the future of its citizens and that it is doing a good job. I look forward to the forum continuing to do its work in bringing Europe closer to the citizen. The provision of €1.151 million is the amount sought by the forum to carry out its work in the current year.

The economy has performed very well against a difficult international background. Economic growth has been strong, especially compared to other European economies. We have seen inflation fall sharply, unemployment remains low, employment continued to grow last year and the public finances remain on a sustainable path. This clearly shows that the Government's economic strategy is working well.

The economic and social policy division of the Department plays an important role in providing briefings and advice and in adopting a "whole of Government" perspective to policy formulation and implementation. The division works with other Departments and stakeholders in a number of key areas, including the economy, infrastructure, social inclusion, financial services and social partnership. It also works closely with the Central Statistics Office in promoting the use of statistics in evidence-based policy-making.

The National Economic and Social Council provides advice for the Government on the development of the economy and the achievement of social justice. The council continues to be to the forefront in identifying and analysing strategic policy issues and is committed to high quality research analysis. The council is continuing the work on housing policy and will determine the remainder of its work programme for 2004. There is a provision of €749,000 in the 2004 Estimates to fund the council's activities.

The National Economic and Social Forum has a particular mandate to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes, especially those concerned with the achievement of equality and social inclusion. It does so through consideration of reports prepared by teams comprising the social partners, with appropriate expertise and representatives of relevant Departments and agencies and its own secretariat. This focus has resulted in a number of publications that contribute and add value to the Government's approach in addressing these areas. The forum's mandate has been extended to facilitate public consultation on policy matters referred to it by Government from time to time. The NESF, with its four strands of the Oireachtas, employer, trade union and farm organisations, community and voluntary sectors and central and local government and Independents, is uniquely placed to harness the views of a wide range of interests. Uniquely, the Oireachtas is represented on the NESF. This is important since our public representatives have unique insights into the impact of policies and programmes on the lives of people. In the 2004 Estimates €580,000 is provided to fund the forum's work.

The National Centre for Partnership and Performance will continue to focus on supporting change and improving performance, through partnership, in the workplace. The NCPP is concentrating its activities during 2004 on the forum on the workplace of the future. The forum is engaging in in-depth discussion, research and analysis on how workplaces can best adapt to competitive pressures and improve the delivery of services. In addition, the centre will continue its ongoing work in supporting partnership initiatives across many sectors. This includes the development of training materials, models and cases of best practice and creating networks for learning and support. A provision of €1.086 million has been made in the 2004 Estimates to fund the centre's activities. This includes a special provision of €250,000 to fund the forum on the workplace of the future.

The National Economic and Social Development Office comprises the NESC, NESF and NCCP. The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill which has completed Second Stage in the Dáil will put these three bodies on a statutory basis as part of that office. The primary role of NESDO is to add value to the work of its constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which co-operation between them can be maximised, joint projects pursued and the potential for duplication minimised. NESDO promotes the development of a shared vision for realising these goals and will encourage the constituent bodies to maximise their impact through co-operation and co-ordinated effort. Through this process of co-operation, knowledge and ideas can be shared and complementary as well as joint programmes and analysis can be pursued.

An amount of €1.032 million has been provided under subhead M of the Vote for the National Economic and Social Development Office in 2004. This will fund joint work activities and the costs of running the office premises and shared administrative services for the office. This includes a provision of €478,000 for the rent of the premises which houses the four bodies which was previously paid by the OPW.

An allocation of €10.324 million has been made under subhead K to fund the ongoing work of the Moriarty tribunal and to provide for costs estimated at €6.5 million which will arise if the tribunal concludes its work in the current year. There is also a contingency provision of €250,000 under subhead J for any outstanding legal costs that might fall due in respect of the McCracken tribunal.

An allocation of €380,000 has been made for the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. The committee recently published its report on property rights. It will continue its very valuable work by continuing its study of the constitutional position of people with disabilities.

Funding of €313,000 has been provided under subhead P to promote mutually advantageous co-operation between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador through the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership which was established on foot of a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Ireland and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This function has recently transferred to the Department of the Taoiseach from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, reflecting the widening scope of the work of the partnership which spans co-operation initiatives and activities in a wide range of sectors. Planned activities in 2004 include initiatives in the areas of marine science and engineering, arts, culture, tourism and education.

I am pleased to report continued good progress with modernisation of the public service. The implementation group, chaired by the Secretary General of the Department, continues to co-ordinate, promote and support implementation of a comprehensive modernisation programme.

Sustaining Progress contains a substantial modernisation agenda for the main sectors of the public service which are being progressed. These include more open recruitment procedures, more competitive promotions, an enhanced performance management system and legislation streamlining staff disciplinary processes. In addition, the agreement provides for performance verification groups, PVGs, which have responsibility for verifying progress prior to the award of pay increases under Sustaining Progress.

Progress in other areas of the modernisation agenda includes: the publication of a White Paper on regulatory reform; promotion of the customer charter initiative, including the publication of detailed guidelines; provision of training assistance for Departments; and a booklet on internal customer service. In addition, work is being undertaken on examining the implications of decentralisation for the different elements of the modernisation agenda, as well as the overarching implications for the system of government as a whole.

A provision of €700,000 is made under subhead G to fund the work of the Information Society Commission. The ISC will continue its mandate to contribute to the formulation of Government policy by highlighting the challenges and opportunities presented by information society developments, provision of expert advice, identification of areas for potential international co-operation and monitoring Ireland's performance in its evolution as an information society. The commission will serve for a three year period until the end of 2004.

The Estimates for the Department include an allocation under subhead A8 of €1.589 million which will fund, inter alia, two research scholarships focused on electronic service delivery in government. The information society policy unit in the Department will continue to promote the e-government objective in 2004. We recognise the importance of developing a modern, dynamic information society in Ireland, to which everyone has access. This will open up vast new business and social opportunities and contribute to our development as a knowledge economy.

The e-Cabinet project is a major step in developing the potential of IT to transform how the public sector works. The initiative aims to modernise the Cabinet administrative system. This will involve the electronic creation, distribution and management of Cabinet papers, the use of technologies in direct support of Cabinet meetings, the use of technologies to improve the presentation of information to Cabinet and the creation of new information resources. E-Cabinet will be the first system of its kind in the world and will set up a framework for the secure electronic transmission of documents between all Departments and the Cabinet secretariat. It is expected that the system will be introduced to Cabinet in the summer of this year.

The Central Statistics Office, in its first ever statistics on how information and communications technologies are used in Ireland, has revealed how the primary use of Internet technologies is still e-mail, with the procurement of travel and accommodation second and information and shopping coming in third. Clearly, therefore, content and the use of technology are key to stimulating greater engagement in the information society.

With the further e-inclusion initiatives being taken this year I hope that we can continue to show how technology can make a real difference to people's lives. E-mail and on-line shopping are a good start, but the challenge is to create meaningful and useful content to enable everyone to exploit technology to maximum advantage and to provide the levers of change and advancement that can help people to overcome barriers of personal and economic circumstance. The allocation in this subhead will fund a number of priority areas, including initiatives to assist in mainstreaming ICT use, build the capacity of the community and voluntary sector, provide ICT access, learning and skills and raise awareness.

The total allocation for the Department of €37.585 million is an increase of €11.777 million, or 45%, over the Estimate for 2003, and €12.958 million, or 53%, over the 2003 outturn. The increase reflects mainly the provision for the costs arising if the Moriarty tribunal concludes its work this year, the €1 million for initiatives on e-inclusion, the funding for the forum on the workplace of the future, the special allocation of €1.695 million for EU Presidency costs and €478,000 in rent costs for NESDO, previously paid by the OPW.

I turn now to the other Votes which are the subject of today's meeting. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, 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, including the social partners, numerous public bodies, business, universities, research institutes and the public. There is also a significant international dimension to the work of the office and the demands resulting from new EU regulations are continually increasing.

In non-census years, the quarterly national household survey continues to be the most important source of information on demographic and social trends. The labour force figures are published within three months of the end of each quarter. The social topics surveyed this year include accidents at work, pensions, disability, organisation of working time, travel to work, equality and home computing. A report on housing was published today and other recent reports include those on life-long learning, child care, educational attainment and voter participation.

The CSO is currently undertaking a census of population pilot test, in preparation for the next census in April 2006. The date for the census pilot test was Sunday, 25 April and information is being collected in 32 urban and rural enumeration areas. It is testing new questions, some changes to existing ones and the mailing back of forms as opposed to having them physically collected by an enumerator.

An important new development in the past year was the start of the EU survey of income and living conditions in June 2003. This will provide statistics needed for national and EU policies, including the national anti-poverty strategy. The CSO is making preparations to conduct a household budget survey in 2005. This survey is conducted every five years and underpins the calculation of the consumer price index.

The National Statistics Board's strategy for statistics from 2003 to 2008 emphasises the role of statistics in supporting evidence-based decision making. An important development in this regard was the publication by the CSO last December of the national progress indicators report, Measuring Ireland's Progress. The office is also working actively to develop the statistical use of administrative records and to support Departments and agencies in the development of their data and statistics strategies. This work will benefit the whole public service by improving information systems and promoting better evidence-based decision-making.

To support the development of statistics, the CSO is continuing to build on its strong IT capability and is in the final stages of implementing its new IT strategy. This will use the latest web-based technologies for processing over 100 surveys and making the results easy to use. The strategy will also help the CSO to respond quickly to new requirements and will take advantage of e-government initiatives as they come on stream. The implementation of a new management information framework in 2004 will support the provision of financial information throughout the organisation and the delegation of budgets to function and line management.

The 2004 Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General is €13.765 million. This provides for the operating costs of the office. Subhead A5 includes funding for the implementation of a new IT plan which is currently under way in conjunction with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. This involves a number of major projects which will greatly increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the office. The sum of €1.593 million is provided by way of a grant-in-aid for the Law Reform Commission.

Vote 13 provides for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The Estimate for the year ending 31 December 2004 is €29.356 million which represents an increase of €627,000 over the outturn for 2003. Funding is included for the continued implementation of two major IT projects — a new case and records management system and a financial management system — undertaken jointly with the Office of the Attorney General.

The Estimate also provides under subhead B for fees to counsel engaged for litigation and advisory work for the office and in subhead C for general law expenses covering a range of legal expenses such as expert witnesses and stenographers and also for the running costs of the Attorney General's scheme.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is €32.122 million. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts and legal costs awarded against the State arising from judicial review and other legal proceedings.

I commend the Estimates to the committee and thank members for their attention.

Each spokesperson will have ten minutes and we will then have a general question and answer session.

This debate is a joke. Most people looking in from the outside would think we are making some effort to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which money is spent by the Government in this area. However, the reports before us do not mention any objectives for any of the bodies involved. We cannot tell how such bodies have performed against objectives and cannot discover any details of their activities or anything which would give us a realistic view of whether the money is being well, badly or indifferently spent.

The Department of the Taoiseach, of all Departments, should take the lead. The Minister of State rightly said that public service modernisation is at the core of any Government's agenda, regardless of its hue. Nonetheless, we must go through this charade of a debate. Members are supposed to make set piece observations, ask a few, hopefully, intelligent questions and then go home happy. However, this has nothing to do with public service modernisation or public service reform.

There has long been talk of including performance objectives with Estimates. Some of the officials present will remember a 1980s document on public expenditure in which, in respect of the bodies now under discussion, concrete information was provided about their activities, achievements, aspirations and so on. While it was a sizeable document, it was very user-friendly. We have stepped back dramatically from that position despite having much greater professional resources at our disposal in the public service. We are not providing the Oireachtas with anything like the type of meaningful debate the people who put us here and who are asked to stump up the money expect and should get in a modern citizens' democracy. While it is not the fault of the Minister of State, it is the fault of the system on which she reports today.

This is reflected in some of the problem areas, for example, tribunal costs. Anyone considering the tribunals would say it is wrong to pay barristers a per diem rate, not to mention that the Government has increased that rate by €1,000 per day since coming to power. Barristers should not be paid a per diem rate for tribunals which it is known will take a very long time to complete. Their positions should be salaried which would allow us to control costs in a meaningful way. This is not happening and the public is scandalised by the costs as well the slow progress, over which I accept the Government has no control. However, it controls costs. While the Minister for Finance raised hopes at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis when he said he would get a handle on this matter, it transpires he was referring to possible future tribunals and not those in existence which provides little reassurance.

I want public service modernisation. Members know my views on benchmarking and I will not repeat them, but that process was a unique opportunity to begin to drive the agenda of public service reform, to introduce greater reform agendas and to pay workers because they were delivering better quality services. However, one would need a wheelbarrow to contain all the performance verification groups and the various things they said they were achieving. Very few of them were measurable and most of them were about datelines on existing activities which were not new activities. They were of little value to the taxpayer who was paying the extra €1.3 million to see if there was a tangible delivery or return for it. Let us not forget that the benchmarking commission stated that 75% of the award was to be conditional on new reforms being put in place rather than reporting on existing reforms which was a serious shortcoming.

Social partnership is valuable but must be refocused on new priorities. However, this has not happened. It is ironic that it was decided to reform the NESC and NESF by creating a third body to co-ordinate them. That is the kind of cul-de-sac procedural activity which has been engaged in, with much of the social partnership failing to tackle hard issues. For example, consumers have no voice in social partnership. We live in "rip-off" Ireland and many providers in key sectors continue to enjoy protection and restricted practices in those marketplaces, often with the Government's blessing. No real agenda is being driven to reform these areas. The Government is always one or two further reports away from action, whether they are from the Competition Authority or any of the other bodies. There is a hands-off attitude to many of the sectors which are creating a rip-off culture.

We are also moving at the pace of the slowest in respect of public service reform. We need to harness the innovation and initiative which exists in the public sector to create a vehicle by which we can have serious and ambitious public service reform driven by the social partnership model. If it is to continue to be relevant, it must be relevant in these areas. It must also be relevant to young people who are struggling with the task of parenting in Ireland because it is so difficult to get housing. People are being pushed further away from Dublin. The tax system does not regard child care as something which is worthy of any support. The housing support policies are bizarre and lunatic. For example, if one is in the private rented sector and on low pay, one gets the princely sum of €4.77 per week in tax relief from the State. However, if one becomes unemployed, one qualifies for at least €200 per week in most of the rent supplements. Why do we tell people they must become unemployed in order to get this kind of supplement?

The social partnership model must address these crux issues which will kill the goose that laid the golden egg if we continue to be "rip-off" Ireland, to be tardy in the reform of key markets, to be slow in reforming public services and to make it difficult for young people to rear their families. These are the agenda items. There has been too much of a cosy consensus in the partnership area. We need much more robust political debate.

I am concerned that the centre of gravity has been moving away from this Parliament, to which people are elected. We may not agree with one another but we have a mandate. We have the right to debate and be crucially involved in important decisions which affect the future of the people. However, that is not happening. The Oireachtas is no longer the sort of place in which important public decisions are made and where elected Oireachtas Members are respected. We have seen that time and again in respect of issues which have come before the House, whether it is freedom of information or electronic voting. The House seems not to matter as much as whether an issue can be squared with the various interest groups in different sectors. We have allowed this to go too far.

A new mandate for social partnership should come from the Department of the Taoiseach in order that we address these issues and harness some of the great people around the table who are capable of reforming these areas. However, we must drive the model forward. It is too easy to have hands-off areas when people get too used to sitting down with one another. Now that he is no longer constrained from doing so, I recently heard Peter Cassells saying how much conformity there is in the thinking which prevails in these partnership arrangements. The reality is that we are becoming too conformist and too unwilling to think about new ideas and pursue them. Change needs to be driven and the key place from which that should come is the Department of the Taoiseach.

I received an e-mail on a specialist aspect of e-voting which I do not understand from a knowledgeable person who states that by opting for some kind of open standard access, we are opting for a second rate system. The person states that we should opt for an open source programme, whereby the State owns and is involved in the building of the model and can change it with its changing needs. The e-mail states that this is the programme we should opt for given that most countries in the forefront of the technology are doing so. We are choosing a system which depends on companies such as Microsoft which will develop the system to suit them rather than our needs. Will the Minster of State respond to the issue, given that it is a specialist area which I am not confident to address? There is concern among groups which are involved in this area and perhaps the Minister of State would arrange for them to have their case heard and report back to the committee on the evaluation of the case made by those who consider that the wrong choice is being made in this area.

I apologise because, like Deputy Bruton, I will have to leave relatively soon. Perhaps out of courtesy to the Minister of State, the Chairman might defer the later stages of the meeting because it directly clashes with Department of Finance parliamentary questions, for which all of us are spokespersons and we will have to leave. I will leave the matter to the Chairman's determination.

We will decide when the time comes.

It is unfortunate that the two should be at the same time and doubly difficult for Opposition spokespersons because, as members know, we have to do most of the work ourselves.

I wish the Government continued progress on the important issues dealing with Northern Ireland and the various fora which are funded from the Department of the Taoiseach Vote. These are all important in the context of the ongoing peace process. Sometimes, as now, when the process has faltered, it can be very important to have those fora available to allow all the parties involved, including those which are most conflicted, to continue to have channels of communication, not just the back channels. Very often they can make statements in public fora and, in many ways, by talking through issues, higher levels of agreement and identifying ways forward can come about. I wish the Department of the Taoiseach and the people working in this very important area well and I hope the process will be kick-started again in the not too distant future. Everyone is anxious to see an end to all paramilitarism on this island. The fora in this context could be more widely used with beneficial results.

The forum on European affairs was a relatively successful model which allowed people to air views around the country. There is a problem for Irish society in that the Government has been in office for seven years and it is obvious that a number of Ministers are convinced they can walk on water. Unfortunately, for them and us — or perhaps fortunately — a number of them are not able to pull off the trick. They keep falling over their shoelaces. However, the Forum on Europe was quite successful in allowing people to debate issues. People may be broadly in agreement with the European project but they have genuine concerns about how it is proceeding and there are features they wish to see adopted as part of the framework of the European Union. It is important they are able to do that. The Forum on Europe, and its chair in particular, along with people from various political parties, did a good job in that regard.

I deeply regret that the Government chose to pull a stroke and hold the proposed referendum on citizenship on the day of the European and local elections. I see from the subhead that as well as the discussion on partnership, which the Minister of State has rightly lauded, and the various fora, for which she has rightly claimed credit for the Government, there is €380,000 for the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Given that we have built a consensual or partnership model in this society, I have heard reports that a number of presentations on this were given by Ministers in the context of the EU Presidency. Even the Minister for Finance went to great lengths in the run-up to the Punchestown affair, with his Department giving a briefing to new entrants on how we had done it.

One of the ways in which we became a role model was by effective partnership and consensual structures. It is all the more regrettable, therefore, that the Government went for cheap political advantage and ignored the process recommended by the all-party Oireachtas committee, to which funding of €380,000 has been allocated, which produced several reports stating that when constitutional change was to be adopted, a procedure should be used which would allow for detailed consultation with the different interests and parties within and without the Houses. That was to be the road map for future constitutional changes. However, lo and behold, with looming elections and the Government parties aware that they would be in for a beating, they decided to go for the narrow advantage of a referendum on citizenship at very short notice, despite the Taoiseach's earlier denials. The Minister of State's words are fine but the action taken on the forthcoming referendum sadly falls short of the standards she set herself for consultation on the part of the Government and in terms of the paper she delivered.

The Minister of State has direct responsibility for the Central Statistics Office and we are undertaking a very sensitive citizenship referendum which is potentially socially divisive. The Belfast Agreement is probably one of the most important things in the life of everybody on this island. However, a critical element has been changed, casually and with no discussion, by the proposed changes to Article 9 of the Constitution. I hope they are not passed. Not only did that happen, there was no reference to the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which costs €380,000 per year, a lot of money to most people.

The Central Statistics Office, for which the Minister of State is directly responsible, has so far been unable to supply us with details of the breakdown of the non-national population in the country. We do not know where those people are from nor how many of them are married to or in relationships with Irish citizens or those of Irish descent with a valid right to reside in Ireland. The Government has been sitting on this proposed referendum and the Minister of State knows, as a good friend of Ireland has said, that we should not have a divisive, damaging debate. Bruce Morrison was a good friend to the Irish illegals in America in the late 1980s, the young people who were basically packed off with their suitcases because there were no prospects here for them, and he said this was the wrong way to go. The Government has ignored the expensive procedures documented here and the CSO, for which the Minister of State is responsible, cannot provide a detailed breakdown on what exactly is the problem with citizenship tourists, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform described them. Instead, we are getting varied statistics from maternity hospitals in Dublin. If representatives of the CSO are here they will know that when people are approached just after giving birth, they are not asked about citizenship but about their nationality, in the sense of where they are from. With all the talk of advances and money being spent on technology, it is a disgrace that the Government is undertaking this extremely sensitive referendum when the Minister of State in charge did not do her homework by commissioning the CSO to undertake research in this area. That could have been done, as this measure has been under consideration for a couple of years.

This is also a bad day in terms of the report published last night by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the procurement procedures of Dublin Castle and the OPW in the run-up to the Irish Presidency. It is a disgrace that despite all the money which went into planning the Presidency, the report contains some damning findings. People within the public service were also involved privately with companies which were providing services for the Presidency and Dublin Castle. There are no ground rules, despite all the material about Civil Service reform. This is related to the report on the Blood Transfusion Service, where a conflict of interest arose when a senior official of that organisation was also involved in a private company which was providing certain services for the board at that time. It was a central element in the conflict of interest that arose.

With all the money spent on consultants, it is disgraceful that PricewaterhouseCoopers has reported it understands why those tendering for Presidency work at Dublin Castle could be led to believe that, because certain officials were involved separately and had declared as much to their superiors, there was an inside track in relation to tendering. I have only had time to scan the report briefly but in terms of Civil Service reform, why has nothing been done to clarify, once and for all, what private work civil servants may do, directly as consultants or through their investment in companies, during their Civil Service careers? In some cases these associated companies tender back to those civil servants' Departments which is potentially the most serious conflict of interest there can be. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also found numerous breaches of Government procurement guidelines in relation to the Presidency, Dublin Castle and the OPW.

I ask the Deputy to conclude to allow Deputy Ó Caoláin contribute. She is using up the Deputy's time. We agreed a timetable.

We are holding this debate six months after——

The Deputy said that.

——the Estimates were published. The material to which I have referred is now available. The Minister of State has a golden opportunity to address the matter in the context of Civil Service reform.

I thank the Chairman for indulging me. There is also the continuing situation in the Civil Service and local authorities where, for example, one day a senior civil servant is a head of a Department or a head of a functional local authority while the following day, with no breach, that person goes to work for those with whom he or she had been dealing previously. In my county of Fingal, many of the principal planners leave today and tomorrow work for the developers, with no definition of how the public interest is to be served.

While much of what the Minister of State has set out is laudable, the reality on the ground is different. The Government has been remiss in addressing these issues, not to mention the issue of Judge Curtin. I am pleased to learn that either the Office of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions is to be computerised or more computerised. I hope that in the future they will be able to get warrants out on time. I do not know whether those offices will carry out an inquiry as to how a seven day warrant was apparently delivered only on the eighth day. That is where we need management reports and management answers. Discussion on these Estimates would be more meaningful if we could get answers to these questions.

I concur with the Chair's opening remarks which have been reflected by other Deputies in regard to the unsatisfactory nature of this process. Five months on, when presumably almost half the annual budget has been spent, we are ostensibly dealing with the Estimates. So far as the public sense of our role as scrutineers of the Government and Government conduct in the expenditure of public moneys is concerned, this falls far short of what I expect people would want. I register my support for that view and do not expect the Minister of State has any different view. There is a general recognition that this system needs to be addressed.

When the Estimates were published last November they heralded a series of significant cuts and clawbacks, the most notorious of which would have been the 16 cuts by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, only one of which has been reversed. In addition, there have been significant increases across a whole raft of varying stealth taxes, in regard to health charges, local authority charges, value added tax, fees for State examinations and many others. These have had a severe effect on families, individuals and workers and have effectively wiped out any of the previous PAYE tax reductions introduced over a series of budgets by the current Minister and have bitten, particularly, into the weekly finances of the lower paid and especially those on and below the minimum wage — I say below the minimum wage because, sadly, that is a fact of life.

The flip side of the coin is that we note in yesterday's statistics that the current indicators are that tax returns are some 20% higher than anticipated. When we see that and recognise what is happening, we can anticipate — please God — a spending spree in the coming weeks. Perhaps the Minister for Health and Children will get €50 million to assist him open up the €400 million worth of capital projects around the country and these capital projects will kick into service as should have been the case from day one.

I make no apology for mentioning those points because it is important at this juncture to reflect on the reality for ordinary people. It is becoming more difficult, particularly for those on low incomes, either single parents or the traditional two-parent families, to cope with children. There is real poverty, not just relative poverty, within all our communities that has to be recognised and addressed. I make the point, as I have done repeatedly in recent weeks to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children, that as an immediate step, there must be a significant increase in the threshold of qualification for medical cards. There is nothing more disturbing and disquieting than a parent or parents anguishing over the need to bring their child to a doctor and having to make a choice as to what they will do without among the essentials of life in any given week.

I wish to refer to the Minister of State's script before referring to a few specific issues. Like other speakers I am caught with the need to attend the Dáil at 3.30 p.m. for priority questions to the Minister for Finance. In the opening two paragraphs of her contribution, the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, when referring to the North of Ireland, stated: "Work is continuing to secure the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. For this to be achieved, it is essential that all of the parties, particularly those now in a position of leadership in their communities, play their part." I would like to add that it is also imperative not only that the parties play their part but that both Governments play their part. It is particularly apparent in the subsequent two sentences which read: "The issues are clear. There must be an end to paramilitarism and there must be inclusive government." I agree these are two important elements but there are others, equally important, and we must not now lose sight of all the essential elements.

While this is not a direct focus of this committee, nevertheless it was introduced in the Minister of State's text. Demilitarisation, policing reform, repeal of oppressive legislation and the continued detention of qualifying prisoners are four issues and there are many others. Each of these is a critically important element in which both Governments have a major part to play. In regard to my party, there is no question but that we will do everything in our power to fulfil our commitments.

I wish to refer to a couple of specific points as we may not get the opportunity subsequently. Subhead D — Forum for Peace and Reconciliation — under Vote 2 for the Department of the Taoiseach indicates a provision of €50,000 in the event that the session or sessions of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation are set in train. I suggest that should happen and that the moneys should be activated. A serious situation is arising with the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Repeated requests have been made that it be referred to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Given the serious impact it has and will have on the Good Friday Agreement, in terms of Article 9 and the subsequent effect in regard to Article 2 of the Constitution, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a body which will accommodate the wide diversity of opinion on the island of Ireland. This matter should also be referred to it, given the responsibility of Government to refer to all of the parties which were party to the Good Friday Agreement in the first instance. As a former member of the forum I suggest it be recalled and the Bill not proceeded with. It should be parked until such time as it is addressed substantively by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.

With regard to the NESF grant-in-aid, subhead 1 on page 11, the National Economic and Social Forum has produced some excellent reports. I refer, in particular, to the equity of access to hospital care report and commend it on the preparation and presentation of that report. More than €500,000 is being provided for the NESF which is doing wonderful work. However, with all respect — I have made this point to the Taoiseach before — unless the Government takes note of and heeds the recommendations of the NESF, one would have to question the end product value of its work and all that is involved in that regard. Our support for this body must be contingent on a commitment from Government to pay attention to NESF reports and to seek to proactively implement the recommendations of this body. In particular, equity of access to hospital care, where it has highlighted that there is inequality in access to hospital care, needs to be addressed urgently.

I refer to the sum of €380,000 regarding the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. It is important that the Twenty-seventh amendment of the Constitution Bill, the so-called citizenship Bill, is referred to that committee. Its chairman, Deputy O'Donovan, indicated that the committee expected to be able to address Articles 1 and 9 regarding the proposed change, yet there is no opportunity for this to happen. I strongly recommend that it does so.

With regard to subhead K, €10.3 million is being provided for the Moriarty tribunal. There is uncertainty about the length of time this tribunal will continue to sit. This is a ballpark figure. Will the Minister of State provide the committee with the breakdown of how much of that amount is for administration of the tribunal and how much is for legal costs? The Taoiseach has indicated time and again that he acknowledges the high fees, some €2,500 per day, paid to counsel at the tribunal. What measures, if any, has the Government considered to address the exorbitant cost of these tribunals as exemplified in the legal costs? What, if anything, is being done to address the exorbitant demands made by senior counsel on the Exchequer?

I ask the Minister of State to respond briefly. Deputy Bruton has asked for a written reply to his questions as he had to leave.

I suggest that if I respond to his questions they will be on the record of the House. I understand the difficulties members have and thank them for their interest and their contributions.

Deputy Bruton raised the issue of the ability to measure the resources used against the objectives. We discussed earlier the management information systems being introduced. The aim of the MIF is to develop a system to monitor and report on financial and non-financial performance in an integrated fashion right across the Civil Service. Departments have been asked in the first instance to upgrade their financial management systems to enhancefinancial reporting as well as to improve financial payment and control systems generally.

The Department of the Taoiseach was among the first three Departments to complete this phase of the initiative. The management advisory committee of the Department of the Taoiseach is now in a position to monitor expenditure trends throughout the year and initiate any corrective action, if required. Three Departments with heavy programmes of expenditure are currently participating in a pilot project to more closely align the strategic planning process with the allocation of resources through the Estimates. The pilot project is in the early stages but, when it is rolled out, we will be much closer to operating the type of reporting system which was envisaged by Deputy Bruton when he raised the issue.

The Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach are both represented on the steering committee overseeing that project. The performance indicator group comprises heads of divisions and examines the development of appropriate indicators to measure the non-financial performance of the Departments. This is quite challenging. One wonders how to actively measure a contribution to the development and implementation of policies that go right across a number of Departments. That is particularly true in the case of the Department of the Taoiseach because it participates in 77 cross-departmental committees. Some things are easier to measure than others.

Some activities and outputs can be easily identified and measured. In 2003 it is interesting to note that 48 Government meetings were held, 800 memoranda were submitted, 1,000 Government decisions were taken, 1,250 parliamentary questions were answered, 46 Bills were published and enacted and 720 files were examined and released to the National Archives. I accept the figures do not give an idea of the amount of work behind them. It would be to everybody's benefit, not just the committee's, to highlight the nature of the work being carried out. I hope that at next year's committee meeting on the Estimates we might show more progress in that regard.

The Civil Service performance verification group had a very positive report on good progress being made on a number of issues. It noted the internal audit and expenditure reviews, the e-Cabinet system, the customer charter, the MIF and human resources. They are all very positive signs. I accept Deputy Bruton's point. We are working towards a system where we will have more information to back up the strict financial figures which are given in the Estimates.

The other issue that caused much debate between the three Deputies who spoke was social partnership. Social partnership has been the basis for much of the success of the economy in recent years. It is addressing the issues of concern which were raised by the Deputies. There will be an opportunity for discussion on Committee Stage of the National Economic and Social Development Bill, the NESDO Bill. It is clear from the Second Stage debate that, contrary to Deputy Bruton's statement that it would create another type of quango on top of the three offices, it will ensure co-ordination of research and the avoidance of duplication. There will be more research and analysis and co-operation and it does not involve any extra expenditure because the manpower will be transferred.

On the question of the wider social partnership issue, the anti-inflation group has been examining prices and the perceived rip-off culture of which people are conscious. The price awareness survey and the campaign by the Director of Consumer Affairs all add to public interest in the area and will achieve a reduction in prices in some areas. Affordable housing is a priority issue for Government. Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, 10,000 units will be delivered during the lifespan of the programme. Waste management is another issue which is being tackled by Government and by local authorities throughout the country. The issue of child care is being dealt with on a number of different levels, particularly with regard to supply on the basis that if sufficient places are provided, prices will not be as astronomically high as I agree they are in some places. The fund being expended by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is making big inroads into that issue. There is no consensus on how, what or why structural change should come about but considerable and important work is being done in that regard in the forum on the workplace of the future.

Deputy Bruton raised the specific issue of open source versus open standards. I addressed this debate in a speech last week and perhaps someone will pass on a copy to the Deputy. This is a global debate and there are differing views on the open source system. From a public procurement point of view, it is critical in everything we do that we ensure we obtain value. If one is assessing value, one must take into account the costs that will arise throughout the lifespan of a project.

In the area of computers one must have confidence in the performance of software. Open source means that the software will be open to amendment and reconfiguration which means the software could eventually turn into something different from the original software. These kinds of issues need to be evaluated when procuring items one wants to last for a long time. We would have to examine the long-term costs as opposed to the short-term benefits, the reason the debate on open source systems has entered into the equation. We must consider the issue from the point of view of value. Open source is an entirely different issue from that of open standards which are critical to successfully connecting the systems of all 15 Departments.

Deputy Burton raised a number of matters, including the Central Statistics Office which was also raised yesterday during Question Time. She is correct that the census of population asked questions about nationality as opposed to citizenship. Respondents were asked questions on place of birth, nationality, current place of usual residence, place of usual residence one year previously, whether they have lived outside Ireland for more than a year and so forth. The information gained from these questions can then be classified in tabular form.

Nationality is recorded in respect of mothers and fathers when births are being registered. It is interesting, however, that it is not compulsory to answer the question. It has been added as part of the new computerised system introduced recently. The Central Statistics Office does not have comprehensive information in respect of the nationality of parents. The information I was able to share with Deputies yesterday was supplied by the maternity hospitals. Deputy Burton was correct in that regard.

Deputy Burton also raised the PricewaterhouseCoopers report published last night. The report is more relevant to the Department of Finance and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specific issue she raised. A high standard of probity is demanded of civil servants. The Ethics in Public Office Act imposed a series of requirements on senior officials. In addition, a draft code of conduct for officials, prepared under the Standards in Public Office Act, has been the subject of Oireachtas comment and will be finalised by the Government.

Deputy Burton also raised an issue which the Taoiseach recently addressed during Question Time, namely, the notion of employees sitting on one side of a table on a Friday and on the other side on a Monday. The Taoiseach stated in the House that this issue should be addressed, possibly through legislation.

Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the cost of tribunals and the measures taken to reduce costs. New legislation, the Commissions of Investigation Bill, has been before the House and introduces a new method to investigate matters which may arise. The new approach will not apply to work already commenced in tribunals.

Deputies should note that the daily rate for counsel in the Moriarty tribunal has been capped since 2002. We must also acknowledge, however, that a considerable amount of money is being paid out because the tribunals are lasting much longer than anticipated.

Deputy Ó Caoláin also raised the Northern Ireland peace process. He, as much as any Deputy present, is well aware of the Government's commitment on this issue and that the two Governments are trying to work together to ensure a resolution is achieved. That the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair met last Sunday, during a busy weekend when ten new member states joined the European Union, to ascertain what progress can be made demonstrates their commitment.

Did Deputies have other specific questions?

I asked for a breakdown of the figure of €10.3 million allocated for the Moriarty tribunal.

The figure of €10.234 million for the Moriarty tribunal consists of €380,000 to cover the pay of civil servants who service the tribunal, €780,000 for non-pay items such as administrative offices, costs, machinery, paper, information technology equipment and so forth and an amount of €2.644 million for legal fees for counsel to the tribunal. A further €6.52 million has been allocated for costs that may arise should the tribunal complete its work in 2004. These include the costs of report publication and some elements of award of legal costs. This sum will only be expended if the tribunal completes its work this year and there are no indications that that will be the case.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is in the Seanad taking Report and Final Stages of the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill. It was proposed that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation meet to discuss this Bill because of its important implications. This legislation not only concerns Sinn Féin; almost all the parties north of the Border have expressed their dismay at the absence of consultation and the failure to engage in a meaningful way as regards the Government's responsibility as one of the two sovereign Governments which signed the Good Friday Agreement. The issue gives rise to real and genuine concerns. I consider the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution appropriate bodies to address this matter. I ask the Minister of State for her view on that matter. I apologise again that I must leave for questions at 3.30 p.m.

A joint declaration by the Irish and British Governments made clear that the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill would not in any way breach the Good Friday Agreement. An assurance, therefore, has been given.

Why is an allocation of €6.5 million required in the event that the Moriarty tribunal concludes this year?

The final amount will depend on what costs the tribunal may award to individuals who come before it.

Is the Minister of State referring to legal costs?

The figure would cover the award of legal costs to individuals. If an individual who has come before the tribunal seeks to have his or her legal costs paid by the tribunal, the tribunal would first determine whether the person was entitled to legal costs and, if necessary, pay out such legal costs.

Will the figure of €6.52 million cover the tribunal's entire proceedings or this year only?

It is a contingency fund, that is, an estimate of what may be required if the tribunal completes its work this year.

Is that the cost for the year or for the full duration of the tribunal?

The Deputy will not like the answer. It is the first phase of costs arising from the work of the full tribunal.

We can, therefore, expect them to be a great deal larger.

It is a substantial amount of money.

Yes. The tribunal's own lawyers will have cost €2.5 million this year alone.

The tribunal could award costs against people. If people are found to have obstructed or not co-operated with the tribunal, for example, costs could be awarded against them.

We have completed our consideration of the Revised Estimates for Votes 2, 3, 4, 13 and 14 in respect of the Department of the Taoiseach. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their help in this regard.

Top
Share