Last month the Dáil referred these Votes to the committee. A draft timetable has been circulated to members. It provides for opening statements by the Minister and Opposition spokespersons, followed by an open discussion on the Votes. Is it agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 18 - Office of the Ombudsman (Revised).
I am happy to appear before the committee to discuss Ireland's stability programme update of December 2006 and to introduce the annual output statements and the Estimates for the year 2007 for the finance group of Votes. The Estimates and output statement for the Office of Public Works will be presented to the committee separately by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon.
The committee will recall that in budget 2005, I signalled my desire to reform the budget and Estimates process. I was particularly interested in generating more constructive debate on the process and examining how modernisation developments could contribute to policy formulation. Government consideration of these issues in the light of inputs such as my Department's pilot project report and views expressed in the Dail culminated in the announcement of proposals for reform in budget 2006. In my Budget Statement on that occasion I set out a proposed series of measures to improve accountability by the Government to the House in budgetary and Estimates matters. My rationale was basically to facilitate a debate on the overall medium-term budgetary position and to set out for the various committees what Ministers and Departments proposed to achieve from the resources for which they were seeking approval.
Significant progress has been made on all these proposals. First, in October last, my Department published the first Pre-Budget Outlook, which replaced the Economic Review and Outlook that had been published in previous years. The new publication updated the economic and fiscal projections not only for the current year but also the outlook for the following two years. In other words, it set out in a more transparent manner the contextual framework within which budget 2007 was prepared. Second, the engagement today with the committee on the stability programme update is to discuss with it the factors underpinning budget 2007 and, more importantly, the projections for years two and three. Finally, all Ministers, including myself today, are submitting annual output statements for 2007 in respect of the Estimates for which they are seeking approval.
There is another element of my 2006 budget package which is the responsibility of this committee. That involves the preparation by the committee of a report for the Dáil on the deliberations of the various committees on both the Estimates and the output statements. While the production and composition of the report is a matter for this committee, it represents an opportunity for the committee to articulate its considered view on expenditure policy priorities for 2008 and later years prior to the Government engaging in its detailed consideration of the 2008-10 budgetary and spending cycle. To assist the committee in this regard, it has now had the benefit of the recent stability programme update, which updates the economic and fiscal projections for the Irish economy for the period ahead. This will enable the committee to form an informed overview of what is proposed for and being achieved by public expenditure in the light of the latest economic and budgetary position.
I will now turn to the December 2006 update of Ireland's stability programme which was published with the budget. As members will be aware, the Stability and Growth Pact is the treaty-based framework for the co-ordination of member states' economic policies. The two basic requirements of the pact are the 3% of GDP deficit limit for the general government balance and the 60% of GDP limit for gross government debt. Equally important, the pact also requires member states to pursue a basic budgetary objective of "close to balance or in surplus", so that budget deficits should be the exception and not the norm. In addition, member states must report each year on their budgetary position by preparing a stability programme which is subject to peer review by the other member states. These aspects are often referred to as the "preventive arm" of the pact.
The programmes are assessed by the Commission with regard to the realism of the budgetary strategy and its compliance with the pact. The analysis also looks at the overall macro-economic performance of the country and highlights relevant policy challenges. Following the Commission's assessment and discussion at the Economic and Financial Committee, the ECOFIN Council formally adopted a favourable opinion on Ireland's stability programme on 27 February 2007. Copies of the Council Opinion have been presented to the committee. Since its introduction, the Stability and Growth Pact, the key elements of which were agreed at the Dublin European Summit in 1996, with reforms agreed at the 2005 spring Council, has had a broadly positive effect in encouraging member states to maintain a more disciplined approach to public finances.
Before outlining the Council opinion, I will deal briefly with the overall economic background and outlook for the next three years as set out in our stability programme update. The performance of the Irish economy over the past few years has, in general, been fairly solid. Last year was no exception, with GDP expanding by over 5%. The corresponding rate of GNP growth is estimated to be closer to 6%. Employment rose by an estimated 4.4% and the level of employment breached the 2 million mark for the first time in the history of our State. Unemployment remained low last year, at 4.4%, which was among the lowest in the EU. While inflation rose to 4% on average on a CPI basis, this was largely driven by external developments over which we have no control — for instance, if the effect of interest rates is excluded, average CPI inflation would have been in the order of 2.6%.
The economic outlook for this year remains positive, with growth of 5.3% in both GDP and GNP terms projected. This is broadly in line with our estimates of our medium-term potential growth and is consistent with the maintenance of full employment. Domestic demand is once again expected to be the main engine of growth. In particular, personal consumption expenditure is expected to expand strongly - growth of 7.3% is forecast - partly reflecting the maturing of the SSIA scheme. Investment spending is forecast to moderate to 5.4%, reflecting our assumptions that new housing output will decline this year.
The pattern of growth, however, has changed in recent years. In contrast to the export-led growth that pertained during the second half of the 1990s, growth is now being driven by domestic demand and this pattern is likely to continue this year. This is not sustainable over the longer term. A resumption of a more sustainable pattern of growth will require an improvement in our cost base, including a better productivity performance.
Turning to the labour market, conditions are likely to remain broadly favourable, with employment forecast to rise by 3.5% this year. The unemployment rate is projected to remain below 4.5% of the labour force, one of the lowest rates in the EU. While currently high, inflation is expected to moderate as the year progresses, heading towards 3% on a CPI basis. Beyond this year, the growth rate is forecast to moderate as the impetus to consumption from the maturing of the SSIA scheme fades and as housing output continues to ease downwards towards more sustainable levels. A lower average GDP growth rate of 4.4% is forecast for 2008 and 2009.
I will now outline some of the main points of the Council opinion and of the related Commission assessment which will be of interest to members. The conclusion in the Council Opinion is that, overall, Ireland's medium-term budgetary position is sound and, as with a small number of other member states, the budgetary strategy is regarded as a good example of fiscal policies in compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. Ireland has been a consistently strong performer under the SGP with low debt and high growth levels. The general government balance has been in surplus in all years from 1997 onwards, with the exception of a small deficit in 2002. On this occasion, however, the Council advises that it would be prudent to maintain room for manoeuvre against any reversal of the current growth pattern which it regards as having been led by strong housing sector developments.
The Council agrees that the budgetary scenario outlined in the programme is realistic. The stability programme envisages that real GDP growth will reduce gradually from 5.4% in 2006 to an average of a little above 4.5% in the period to 2009. The Commission considers that the main budgetary risks relate to a potential sharp downturn in the current high levels of residential construction and property prices. This is acknowledged by us in the programme, as is the risk on the domestic front that a further deterioration in competitiveness could be brought about through relatively high price or wage inflation.
The healthy position in the public finances is reflected in an expected surplus in the order of 2.6% of GDP for 2006. This significantly stronger result compared to the previous year is attributed in the Commission's assessment mainly to housing related revenues and, to a lesser extent, to the impact of higher output growth on taxes generally. The projected budgetary position is for a general government budget surplus of 1.2% of GDP in 2007 followed by surpluses of 0.9% in 2008 and 0.6% in 2009. These balances include the cost of infrastructural investment which at approximately 5% of GNP is running well ahead of the EU average over the period.
In common with a small number of other member states, Ireland is already achieving its medium-term budgetary objective of a budget at close to balance in structural terms. The commission acknowledges that this position is likely to be maintained over the programme period to 2009. Nonetheless, the commission's analysis is that the structural balance is likely to decline by about 1% of GDP between 2007 and 2008. I should explain that under the pact, member states which are already at their medium-term budgetary objective should endeavour to avoid implementing pro-cyclical policies or an expansionary fiscal stance during economic good times. In this regard, the Council opinion includes an invitation to Ireland, in common with a number of similarly placed member states, to avoid pro-cyclical policies in the coming years.
I would like to be clear on this point. As I said in the budget, I am returning some of the additional resources at my disposal this year to the taxpayer. I have committed some to additional support in the social welfare and health areas. In line with the Stability and Growth Pact, I am also using some of the additional revenue to run a substantial budget surplus.
Under the recent Stability and Growth Pact reform, there is a particular focus on reducing debt levels and achieving long-term budgetary sustainability. Ireland has one of the lowest debt ratios in the euro area. Our gross debt is estimated to have declined to around 25% of GDP in 2006, well below the 60% of GDP treaty reference value. We expect the debt ratio to decline by a further 3% over the programme period.
When it comes to long-term sustainability of the public finances, Ireland is considered to be at "medium" risk. This follows from our changing demographic profile which will see the share of older people rise and, consequently, a large increase in age-related expenditure, particularly on pensions. To cope with the long-term costs of aging, the Council opinion indicates that Ireland will need to run high surpluses over the medium term and to put in place measures that address future expenditure pressures. By setting out available options, the forthcoming Green Paper on pensions policy will make an important contribution in this respect.
The Council's view is that the stability programme confirms the commitment of the Government to maintaining sound public finances in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The pact continues to provide the overall framework for medium-term budgetary policy in support of the Government's objectives for employment, competitiveness, prosperity and balanced economic development, as well as the long-term sustainability of public finances.
I would like to turn to the area of general public expenditure. The strategy underpinning the Government's approach to the 2007 expenditure Estimates is to: promote sustainable economic and employment growth and national competitiveness; continue to give priority to the key areas of capital investment, social welfare, health and education; provide for expenditure this year to meet in full the requirements of various Government strategies, including those under the National Development Plan 2007-2013; provide the resources necessary to deliver improvements across the whole spectrum of public services, including improved equity and opportunity; optimise value for money in the delivery of public services; and maintain spending on public services at a sustainable level into the medium term, while delivering on our ambitious programme of investment under the NDP and key commitments in the partnership agreement Towards 2016.
Total gross voted expenditure in 2007 will be €56.3 billion, representing an increase of €6.5 billion, or 13%, on the provisional outturn last year. Details of key outputs to be achieved across all sectors are set out in the new annual output statements for 2007, tabled by Ministers to the select committees.
The National Development Plan 2007-2013, published on 23 January last, is a comprehensive blueprint for investment over the period of €184 billion of Exchequer and non-Exchequer funds. It also sets out strong strategies to promote the key horizontal objectives of regional development, environmental sustainability, rural development and all-island co-operation. Investment under the plan will be rolled out within a framework of economic and budgetary stability and in full compliance with the requirements of the EU Stability and Growth Pact. The economic framework underpinning the plan assumes annual average economic growth over the period of 4% to 4.5%. It is affordable on that basis, but it will be challenging.
The period to 2013 represents a major window of opportunity in resource terms to tackle, in particular, our infrastructure deficits before population-related expenditure pressures in health and pensions appear more intensively on the horizon. We must use our favourable demographic situation to boost the productive capacity of the economy to meet long-term demographic challenges.
As I mentioned earlier, the third strand of the Government's Estimates and budget reform process is the presentation by Ministers of annual output statements to facilitate consideration of Estimates by the select committees. The annual output statements transform the process from one where the focus was on inputs to one where we ask what are we getting for this money. The statements are designed to facilitate more informed consideration of the Estimates by the select committees. They provide the select committees in a structured way with more than just the information on financial inputs contained in the revised Estimates volume.
Output statements link financial information in the revised Estimates volume to departmental strategy statements. They set output targets for the year ahead and, from 2008 onwards, will also give details of performance against previous year's targets, as well as setting new targets for the year ahead.
As a result of the output statements, the select committees will have good quality, hard information available to them to help them assess what the Government is trying to do with public expenditure and what it is achieving. This is the first year of the annual output statements and I anticipate that the quality of the statements in future years will improve from engagement with the select committees.
The annual output statements are an important part of the enhanced value-for-money framework which I have put in place in recent years. Value for money for the taxpayer must be a core priority. It is important, however, to put this issue in context. While there are examples of waste that we must strive to eradicate, the bulk of public expenditure represents value for money. For example, in 2007, we will spend €15.3 billion, or over 27% of total expenditure, on social welfare payments. This provides income transfers to pensioners, widows, lone parents and others in need of assistance from the State. Similarly, in 2007, we will spend €8.6 billion, or over 15% of total expenditure, on education, enabling teachers to provide top-class education for more than 800,000 children at first and second level. The expenditure also includes the upgrading and construction of new and existing schools, as well as at third level.
In the health sector, we will spend €15 billion this year, or nearly 27% of total spending, employing doctors, nurses and other paramedical staff who give dedicated and committed top-class service to thousands of patients.
No one is suggesting that the cumulative allocation for these areas of 69% of the total Estimates provision in 2007 represents poor value for money. Nonetheless, we must continually strive to be even more efficient and effective in the determination of spending priorities and delivery of public expenditure. I work on the assumption that where money is spent one should always look for improved value for money. The focus in this regard must be on more efficient and effective use of resources and better planning and management of projects. The key is to put in place a robust framework for the selection and management of expenditure programmes and projects that will optimise value for money considerations. A number of initiatives have been put in place by the Government to secure this objective. These include: the five-year rolling multi-annual capital envelopes introduced in 2004; new guidelines in 2005 for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure, including mandatory cost benefit analysis for projects over €30 million; a major revamping of the expenditure review initiative last year; value for money measures in the area of ICT projects and consultancies; reforms to public procurement, including fixed-price construction contracts to promote greater cost certainty; and the recent establishment of a dedicated central expenditure evaluation unit in my Department to promote best value for money practice throughout Departments and to carry out spot-checks of performance in this regard. The cumulative effect of these and other measures, including the necessary upskilling of key agencies, have positive effects on the delivery of capital projects in particular.
The elements of the accountability and value for money framework, as I have set out, are essential building blocks for the Estimates and budget reform now in place. With my Government colleagues, I will review their operation and consider what further reforms might be appropriate as we move forward. Our goal in regard to the reform programme is to ensure that there will be even more effective, efficient allocation and management of resources by Ministers, Departments and agencies. Our goal also includes greater accountability to the Oireachtas and the public in regard to public expenditure policy, value for money and achievements for public expenditure.
I will now deal with the details of the finance group of Votes. Vote 6, Office of the Minister for Finance, provides for the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department of Finance. This funding will facilitate the Department in delivering on its high level goals as identified both in the output statement and in the Department's statement of strategy. Each of these seven goals is delivered under a dedicated, high-level programme with associated key strategies, and is presented in the output statement with the relevant impact indicator. As regards the funding itself, information on costs on a subhead basis is provided in the Revised Estimate, while the distribution of these costs across the Department's high level goals is outlined in the output statement.
The gross Estimate for Vote 6 amounts to just over €104 million, which represents an increase of just over €5 million on the 2006 outturn. The net estimate is €97.5 million, which is an increase of just under €1 million over the net outturn for 2006. The difference between the gross and net estimates is accounted for by a significant increase in appropriations-in-aid in 2007. This increase is as a result of a decision to fund the PEACE programme on a gross basis in 2006 and subsequent years. The PEACE programme is jointly funded by the EU, the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland and my Department. Provision is made in advance for the EU portion and this expenditure is claimed back by the special EU programmes body and recouped to the Exchequer in the following year in the form of appropriations-in-aid. In 2007, this will amount to approximately €6.5 million.
In regard to the Department's administrative budget, the 2007 Revised Estimate for administrative subheads is €48.85 million, approximately 80% of which relates to salaries, wages and allowances, with the balance for non-pay costs. This is an increase of €3.85 million over the 2006 outturn, primarily due to provision for the terms of Towards 2016.
While policy work remains the core activity of the Department, and this is reflected in the outputs associated with the various high level goals outlined in the output statement, gross programme expenditure, or other services, of €55 million accounts for over half the Estimate.
One of the largest areas of such expenditure, €18.7 million, relates to programme three of the annual output statement, EU policy development and wider international economic co-operation, and includes over €14 million for the peace programme and North-South INTERREG and €3.8 million for the operational costs of the special EU programmes body, the Ireland-Wales and transnational INTERREG, the Structural Funds technical assistance and other costs and technical assistance costs of regional assemblies.
In addition, just over €13 million is provided under programme six of the output statement for the enhanced management of the public service, with €11.9 million for programme one, economic and budgetary policy, €9 million for programme two, taxation and sectoral policy, and €2.3 million for programme 5, incomes policy development and implementation.
In the context of the 2007 Estimate for my Department, the associated strategies and outputs for this year, as outlined in the output statement, are wide-ranging and reflect the Department's mission statement to promote a growing economy which will deliver a high level of sustainable employment, social progress and living standards.
These outputs across the various high level goals include: advice on sustainable budgetary and economic policy; managing both aggregate and sectoral public expenditure in accordance with the Government's budgetary strategy and the promotion of value for money; representation at EU and international fora; underpinning Ireland's international financial services sector; negotiation of public service pay aimed at maintaining competitiveness and keeping public service pay costs at sustainable levels, modernisation initiatives for the public service; and quality customer service to our internal and external customers.
These outputs reflect the central role of the Department of Finance in implementing Government policy and in providing advice and support on the economic and financial management of the State and overall management and development of the public sector.
Vote 9 relates to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The net Estimate for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, at €409.6 million, provides for an increase of €31.7 million, or 8%, on the 2006 outturn. The bulk of the Estimate, approximately €328 million, is for pay and allowances for 6,487 staff and this is the area responsible for most of the increase referred to.
As can be seen from the output statement furnished to the committee, most of Revenue's resources are, as would be expected, devoted to two main areas, namely, facilitating and encouraging compliance, including enhanced customer service delivery, and confronting and reducing evasion, avoidance and non-compliance. The overarching output delivered by Revenue is the tax collected, which is forecast at over €49 billion for 2007, and all its strategies to a greater or less extent underpin this.
Aside from staffing, the biggest area of investment by Revenue is in regard to information technology. Significant investment has been made over the years in developing a world class IT infrastructure in Revenue and it is reasonable to say there is a general consensus that this is an area in which very substantial progress has been achieved. That investment will continue this year to maintain the existing Revenue systems, such as the Revenue on-line service, ROS, and to provide enhanced services to personal taxpayers and businesses. Revenue will also continue to invest in its information management and business intelligence capabilities to support the Revenue focus on using sophisticated risk-based approaches to tackling non-compliance in all its forms.
As regards the other Votes in the finance group, members have been provided with background briefing by my Department on all the Estimates presented today for their approval. I thank the select committee for its attention and I commend the Estimates to it. I will be glad to supply further information or clarification that members may request.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement.
I welcome the Estimates, the briefing statements and the new output statements. However, these new output statements arrived too late to influence the decisions of the Dáil on expenditure items. The reform of public finances and public services in the past five years has been insufficient and we need to be more ambitious, demanding and innovative. The location for a debate on that is not in this committee but in the wider public arena.
It is disappointing that despite all our wealth — we have more than doubled public spending since 2002 — we have still not delivered coherence in the delivery of many public services. One need only look at transport in Dublin where eight years after it was first promised, we still do not have a Dublin transport authority and integrated ticketing. We put in more bus lanes but did not provide buses. There has not been joined-up thinking in transport in Dublin.
In regard to spatial planning, we have repeated the worst mistakes of urban sprawl by developing greenfield sites without the transport infrastructure to underpin them and without child care and education provision. We have not had joined-up or strategic thinking in the key challenges we face.
Worst of all, we have vacillated in the area of health. We moved from eight to 11 health boards in the belief that there were not enough and then we collapsed the number back to one. Those of us who are practitioners in the field do not see the Health Service Executive as being more accountable or effective in delivering at the frontline.
In my constituency, Beaumont Hospital is operating at 99% capacity which means it has six beds to meet the typical accident and emergency load which comes its way. In addition, it has only half the number of convalescent beds compared to the rest of the country in terms of population per head. What that means is that, typically, 100 or more beds in Beaumont Hospital are used not to provide acute care but after care for people who should be in nursing or convalescent homes. We have half the number of general practitioners so far too much work is finding its way into the hospital, which cannot cope. Again, there has not been joined-up thinking. That is the challenge we face.
With our wealth, we need more coherent strategic planning across these various areas. That is the challenge for any new Government, namely, to see how we reform budget formation and ensure the budget goes to areas in which there is high performance and that we demand value for money.
I welcome these output statements which are the first tentative steps but they have come far too late to have any significant influence on the way the Dáil, which is coming to a close, made decisions on spending.
The national development plan covers the classic €180 million — never mind the quality, feel the width. Let us not forget that when the Department of Finance launched the National Development Plan 2006-2010, it said it would set up a central evaluation unit and that the role of this unit would be to evaluate projects effectively, that it would have coherence in the way projects were selected and that it would have joined-up thinking to ensure we picked the best projects and got value for money. That central evaluation unit was not established in 2000, or even in 2003, half way through the programme, but rather in June 2006, with six months left to go, and taxpayers have had to pay for the herd of white elephants which got out in the meantime.
I will not dwell on a discussion on these Estimates. We are moving into a different phase of the debate on these issues. I thank the Minister for the effort that has been put into providing briefing material on the activities of the Department of Finance. These output statements are an interesting innovation.
The Office of Public Works is essentially a property company. If one was to offer this report to any private sector property management, it would not make much sense of it. There is very little talk of square footage, price, rent yields or what the equivalent rent might have been, which was saved by going for the options picked. It does not convey a sense that we are benchmarking the OPW as public sector management of property. Ultimately, we need to move to such a document so that people reading it see, not merely lists of towns where there are decentralisation projects but rather some element of why the choices are made, why the sites were a good fit, how OPW got good value and how they would compare with direct procurement or work contracted directly from the private sector. With such a dynamic report we could reflect and state we have made good choices, we are managing our assets much more effectively, the cost of maintenance per square foot is lower than the equivalent cost of maintenance on a private operation, or whatever. That is the direction in which we still must go with this documentation to make it more meaningful for members.
I suppose this will be the last occasion for this exercise before the forthcoming general election. The Minister, in his opening statement, talked up the economy and what he sees are the positives in the case of the Department of Finance. That is understandable in the week before his party's Ard-Fheis where I presume he will do the warm-up speech for the Taoiseach and encourage the troops to say that everything is rosy in the garden. While the economy is doing well, nonetheless what the Minister has not referred to are the areas which give indications of potential problems lying ahead. In that context, a number of matters stand out.
He alluded to the importance of the construction sector in which this economy is dangerously exposed. Over the past year and a half there have been seven successive increases in interest rates from the European Central Bank and it looks like there will be at least two more. Given that individuals in the Irish economy are now heavily indebted by comparison with their counterparts in most other European economies, the key issue is the kind of inflation experienced in the construction sector, particularly in speculation in land values and, second, but to a lesser extent, in construction costs, and the cost of servicing that debt.
It is no wonder that the survey of people's perception of their well-being, which was published in all of the national newspapers this morning, indicates that although Ireland has done well, an extraordinary number of people feel quite nervous about the economic outlook. A look at where people's fears lie would tell the Minister everything. People are extremely nervous of becoming ill and having to go to hospital. They worry whether they can afford the cost of private health care. Most of all, most people, and I suspect many in this room, worry whether if they are unfortunate enough to end up in an accident and emergency department, they will come out of the experience alive or will get some dreadful disease because they must go into a filthy hospital. Unfortunately, these fears are being realised in significant numbers. Clean hospitals are a matter, not of fancy equipment but of dedicated management of the structure with staff who strive to work together.
People's second fear relates to the question over the construction industry and their housing situation. These are people who cannot afford to buy a house and people who when they buy a house find that the costs are very expensive. Young families, particularly the kind who live in my constituency, are mortgaged highly. While the housing market remains buoyant such mortgages may not be beyond their reach, but should the housing market go down they could be very exposed. Many of these young families in my constituency cannot get a place for their children in school, either at primary or secondary level. For many Deputies, that is unbelievable but at present in Dublin West there are more than 400 children on waiting lists where there are serious problems in getting a school place.
We debated schooling issues during the Labour Party's Private Members' time last night and the night before. This Government throws statistics at the problem. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, stated she has appointed 8,000 special needs assistants, and 7,000 or 8,000 extra teachers to areas like special needs education, but the reality is that the Government has had to turn its back on one of its fundamental promises when it took up Government, which was to reduce class sizes for children aged 9 and under to 20. In Dublin West that promise is not deliverable because the school rooms are not there. What we now have in schools are vast numbers of ancillary teachers and ancillary staff like special needs assistants, but no room through which to reduce class sizes.
There is a serious lack of joined-up policy. I can understand why the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, must grit his teeth when he sees the billions of euro going into education, to which he referred, and into health, but the output being extremely poor. Poverty is relative and people's expectations are also relative. Once one moves into a wealthier world-class economy where people go on weekends to New York and their children travel for a year or two to Australia or New Zealand, then one must not be surprised when they apply the standards of other modern economies to our infrastructure. The Government is not doing well on that.
The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, was worried about the Opposition engaging in auction politics and uncosted promises. There are no costings underpinning the €185 billion national development plan. It is a series of designated programme statements with output desires and an affordability index within the plan based on the expected growth rates in the economy. Otherwise, there are no figures associated with the national development plan. It includes nothing on climate change. There is nothing on a series of other costings. On grounds of commercial confidentiality because of the interaction with PPPs or for other reasons, Ministers are stating increasingly that they will not provide costings for various projects. It is a bit rich to hear the Minister, Deputy Brennan, suggesting that the Opposition is involved in making irresponsible promises when, as the Minister for Finance has stated, Fianna Fáil's election manifesto is to be posited around the national development plan — this in a document of hundreds of pages but fewer than six pages of tables.
On the output statement, any development of information is to be welcomed. Whether this relates to public service senior management or to ministerial decisions, what use is an output statement that does not contain comparative staff numbers and costs? It contains output targets relating to staff numbers this year, but no comparative figures.
When discussing person-intensive operations, which is inevitably the case with many Government activities, it is difficult to make an assessment, particularly when output statements that lack detailed comparative information in respect of staffing, working hours and the number of whole-time and part-time staff are provided. The Minister's predecessor had a great deal to say on this matter.
It is difficult to make sense of the decentralisation programme because we have effectively been presented with a series of statements that progress in respect of moving people is ongoing. I am aware, from replies to parliamentary questions I tabled, that 800 people have transferred to other Departments under the decentralisation programme. We do not know how many of these individuals already work outside the Dublin area and are merely transferring from one location outside the capital to another.
In the part of the output statement that relates to the State Laboratory, one of the suggestions made is that it "meet requirements for timely high quality services in areas such as forensic toxicology, health and safety compliance, environment and heritage protection and metrology". Among the aggregate impact indicators to which the statement refers are "Customer satisfaction with analytical and advisory service, meeting targets set out in the Service Lever Agreements". The programme to which it refers is the "Coroners' Service and other Departments ... investigations into the causes of sudden death ...".
I represent a constituency in which there is an extremely high murder rate as a result of gangland activities. Unfortunately, as is the case in many other constituencies, large numbers of young people are dying as a result of suicide. In some instances, the latter may or may not be linked with substance abuse. As everyone is aware, large numbers of deaths and serious injuries throughout the country happen as a result of road accidents. The Garda Síochána is intimately linked with these matters. If he has dealt with a family that has lost a member through one of the causes of death to which I refer, the Minister will be aware that in some instances it can take years to obtain toxicology reports from a coroner's office. I have tabled parliamentary questions in respect of this matter and I am aware that improvements are ongoing. However, the output statement does not tell me anything more than I have learned from speaking to coroners on behalf of families that have lost sons or daughters, particularly in cases where it was necessary to analyse whether drugs or other substances were present in an individual's body.
Output statements may be meaningful within the Department of Finance. If the statement to which I refer contained a framework which indicated that the time taken to analyse samples is, on average, between 15 months and two years and that the target next year would be to reduce the upper limit to 18 months, it might mean something to people. Many Deputies have experience of this matter and we are aware that new legislation was passed. However, there is nothing to indicate how people should interpret the information provided in the output statement. If I was to use the part of the statement relating to the State Laboratory as a source of information, I do not know how I would explain what it means. It is meaningless. Why are detailed comparators relating to staffing not being made available in respect of the annual output statements? Within the public service and in terms of overall costs, such comparators would be a key indicator.
On the overall performance of the economy, I do not know if the Minister commented on the schools issue, which is central in terms of young families being encouraged to remain in this country, or the child care issue, which is also extremely important to such families.
On foot of the reforms that were introduced, we set out in the annual output statements to highlight the level of resources being applied in various areas. As regards detailed operational management and day-to-day expenditure, management teams are in place to deal with queries and, as members are aware, service level agreements, up to which those teams are expected to live, have been devised by many of the agencies. The micro-detail being sought is not available to me. Detailed parliamentary questions could be tabled in respect of the information sought. The output statements set out the level of resources allocated to the agencies that come under the remit of the Department.
Staff numbers, with the associated pay costs, are provided under each programme. This gives an indication of the level of pay and pensions that is attributed to each programme area or agency under the Department's remit. People can draw conclusions as to whether staff numbers are sufficient. However, the process of obtaining the micro-detail beyond that would probably be best served by the medium of parliamentary questions.
The statements, on page 77, provide some indication of output targets for 2007 for the coroners service. It is stated that more than 4,000 samples will be analysed, that advice will be given in 340 cases and that 25 new techniques will be developed. In addition, information is provided on programme expenditure and costs relating to programme administration. Beyond that, parliamentary questions are probably the appropriate mechanism by which to obtain information on individual cases and delays relating thereto. Next year it will be necessary to indicate whether the 4,000 plus samples to which I refer were analysed. If it emerges that they were not analysed, it will be necessary to provide information as to why that was the case. The annual output statements set out the level of activity involved.
Unless there is a comparator, the figure of 4,100 samples does not mean anything. It is stated that the staff complement for the programme is 22.6. I have no idea, relatively speaking, whether that is a fantastic improvement or whether it is a disimprovement. The concept of output statements is good and is potentially a good innovation. However, is the Minister stating that it will be necessary to wait four or five years to obtain comparative indicators? Not only do the accounts of private companies provide comparative accounts for the current year and that which preceded it, depending on the Stock Exchange requirements comparatives for a period of five or ten years are also supplied in the appendices. Without specialist insight, it is impossible to gauge whether the level of performance is good, bad or middling.
With regard to the cost, it is difficult to establish how worthwhile it is unless there is a basis for it. The Minister said that in 18 months we will obtain comparative information. That is a significant gap in the context of timely management. I picked this example because the operation of the Coroner's Office and the toxicology service is very sensitive. Unfortunately, a significant number of sudden deaths in Ireland involve young people.
This process was introduced in 2006 and we have the 2007 output statements. When the circle is completed next year, we will know what outputs have been achieved and the process will roll on from there. Improvements may need to be made in presentation. This interaction is about what members see as adequate or inadequate. The only proviso is that we must avoid ascribing mico-detail to an output statement — that would be wrong. However, I take the point that people will want to know the level of activity, the resources being applied to that activity and whether the planned activity has been achieved. Next year output statements will outline what will be done in the upcoming year but they will also confirm what was done during the current year. That will provide a comparison, for example, of whether the output for 2008 is likely to be achieved, based on the 2007 performance. Such comparative analysis will emerge once the first cycle of the process is completed. This is the first set of output statements and members are free to give a critique on their adequacy so that we can take on the issues to improve the information members seek to discharge their accountability functions.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.