SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 2009

2009 Annual Output Statement.

Chairman

We have a quorum and are meeting in public session. Apologies have been received from Deputy Barrett. We will consider the Taoiseach's group of Revised Estimates and output statement. On 23 April the Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for Public Services be referred to this committee, 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 welcome the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Pat Carey, and their officials. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the output statement for the Taoiseach's group of Votes. The draft timetable, which has been circulated, allows for opening statements by the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and the Opposition spokespersons, followed by a discussion on each Vote and output statement. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

As part of the budget process reform initiated by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech 2006, each Department must publish an output statement for consideration by Oireachtas committees. In line with that reformed budgetary process, an output statement has been circulated with a briefing. This is an important initiative and is intended to facilitate better parliamentary involvement in the budget and Estimates process. In letters in 2008 and 2009, the Minister for Finance requested that the Estimates debates should focus on the output to be achieved for the moneys voted. In the 2009 letter, the committee has been asked to undertake a similarly critical and co-ordinating role in this round of the 2009 annual output statements. A letter has been sent to each select committee on this. If this committee has constructive criticisms on the quality and nature of the documents and how they might be improved, I ask that they be articulated so they can be brought to the Minister's attention.

The Taoiseach

I thank the Chairman and colleagues. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the select committee as it considers the 2009 Estimates for Votes 2, 3, 13 and 14. I will give an outline of the Estimates for my Department, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director Public Prosecution, and my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Carey, will make a statement on the Estimate for the Central Statistics Office.

Vote 2 concerns the Department of the Taoiseach. A total of €32.686 million has been provided in the Estimate for my Department in 2009. This represents a reduction of 27% on the 2008 Estimates allocation and of 1% on the 2008 outturn, which clearly reflects the imperative of reducing expenditure, improving productivity and doing more with less. That is a challenge faced across the public service. My Department has made significant steps in achieving greater efficiency and productivity. In 2008, administrative savings of €1.2 million were achieved, a saving of 5% on the annual allocation. A range of measures were identified to cut costs across all areas of administrative activity. These included improvements in procurement processes, greater use of technology and shared services, energy efficiency programmes, redeployment of resources and restructuring of processes. These resulted in significant savings, most notably reductions of 8.9% on travel costs, 11% on posts and telecommunications costs, 30% on office equipment related costs and 61% on consultancy costs.

Significant savings have also been realised in the Department's payroll budget arising from last year's decisions, with staffing numbers in the Department decreasing by 7% from 222 to 212 in the course of the year. Staffing numbers and costs are expected to fall further in the current year as a result of recent budgetary initiatives.

My Department has also participated actively in system-wide change and innovation. Among important recent specific examples are the implementation of a shared services financial system with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in Killarney, a shared library system with the Department of Finance and the roll-out of the e-Cabinet system across all Departments. I am confident, given our recent track record, that further savings will be achieved this year.

Regarding the Department's strategic priorities, within these tighter constraints my Department will continue to provide necessary services and meet the priority objectives set out in my Department's strategy statement and annual output statement. Those objectives are evolving as the external economic environment has been changing rapidly.

My Department is at the heart of Government and plays a pivotal role in supporting the day-to-day operation of Government and my work as Taoiseach in leading, co-ordinating and progressing Government policy. The annual output statement sets out the means by which my Department supports me in advancing the Government's priorities. These include supporting the processes of Government, the Cabinet committee system and social partnership, the operation of my office and that of the Ministers of State, the provision of policy advice and the co-ordination of complex cross-departmental matters. My Department also carries out important central Government responsibilities such as working with the Oireachtas, especially through the Office of the Government Chief Whip and the Government legislation committee, liaising with the Office of the President, providing an official protocol service, providing the Government Information Service and organising official State events and commemorations.

Broadly speaking, the resources of my Department are divided evenly between the three strands of supporting the Taoiseach and the Government, policy advice and co-ordination, and corporate support services. There is also an important emphasis on corporate governance and accountability to the Oireachtas and to the citizens. As the committee is aware, I appear very regularly in the Dáil to answer questions on all aspects of the Government's work. This is supplemented by extensive accountability via the media and through freedom of information requests, as well as through engagement with this and other Oireachtas committees. In its day-to-day work, my Department plays a key role in supporting the Government as it continues to progress national priorities, including the peace process in Northern Ireland and North-South co-operation; strengthening our role and promoting our interests in the European Union and the wider world; promoting sustainable and inclusive development of Ireland's economy and society; steering economic adjustment and maintaining industrial relations stability at a very challenging time, including through engagement with the social partners; and driving the reform and modernisation of the public services.

My Department has for many years now played a key leadership role across Government on the Northern Ireland peace process. Although we have seen enormous progress over recent years in Northern Ireland, important challenges remain. It is vital we maintain the political momentum and continue to build on the platform the peace process has provided. The next step is the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Executive. After a difficult period last autumn, agreement was reached on a process for achieving this and the relevant Westminster legislation was passed in March. I hope the remaining steps in this process will be taken in the coming months.

The murders of two soldiers and a member of the PSNI in March of this year were a stark reminder to us all that the only way forward for Northern Ireland is through peace and agreement. The united response of all the parties demonstrated that there will be no going back. However, we will continue to be vigilant and ensure dissident criminal gangs face the full rigour of the law.

All of us on this island face challenging economic times. North-South co-operation and the island economy can make a significant contribution to economic recovery. Departments and agencies on both sides of the Border are actively working together to meet this challenge and to build up the all-island economy. We continue to develop practical co-operation through the work of the North-South Ministerial Council which is meeting regularly in plenary, sectoral and institutional formats and through the British-Irish Council, which is taking on additional work streams.

The Government is committed to investment in infrastructure projects that will benefit everyone on this island. We are seeing significant progress, for example on the inter-urban routes from Dublin to Belfast and to the north-west gateway of Derry-Letterkenny. I continue to work closely with the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and I greatly value the support of President Obama and his administration in this work. I also greatly appreciate the long-standing cross-party support in the House.

My Department supports me in my role as a member of the European Council and as Head of Government dealing with Ireland's role in European and international affairs. This involves close collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments to promote and protect Ireland's interests in the EU and other international fora. It also seeks to ensure Ireland can contribute to the strengthening of the EU and the multilateral, rules-based system including the United Nations.

A key imminent challenge is the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. On the basis of the agreements made at the European Council last December and on the condition of satisfactory guarantees being finalised, I said I would be prepared to return to the public with the new package and to seek its approval of it. We are now engaged in the process of fleshing out those guarantees with our EU partners in advance of the European Council meeting later this month.

More generally, our research on the referendum result last June showed a lack of information or understanding about the Union. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is developing a new communications strategy on the European Union to address this problem which is widespread across the Union. This new strategy will be rolled out over the coming weeks and months. In April and in the context of budgetary pressure on all fronts, the Government announced that the National Forum on Europe will close. It is our view the Oireachtas should once again lead national political debate on issues related to membership of the European Union. The work of the Sub-committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union was very positive in demonstrating that. I thank the chairman of the forum, Mr. Maurice Hayes, and all who participated in its work over the past eight years.

Beyond the EU, my Department's main interest is in strengthening bilateral relations with non-EU states, especially regarding international trade and ensuring effective pursuit of Ireland's interests in international bodies and organisations, including the United Nations. International visits and summits form part of Ireland's strategic approach to further developing our bilateral political, economic and cultural relations. They serve to maintain Ireland's position at the forefront of international matters and raise our profile in terms of inward and outward economic and investment opportunities.

I visited China in October 2008, leading one of the largest ever trade missions with 100 Irish companies and organisations and the State's key economic agencies. I also met with Premier Wen Jiabao. I paid an official visit to Japan earlier this year to mark more than 50 years of diplomatic relations. I led a significant trade mission with more than 70 Irish companies along with the State's key economic agencies and held meetings with Prime Minister Aso and Emperor Akihito.

I participated in the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in Switzerland at the end of January with more than 40 Heads of State or Government. In March, I led a successful trade mission to the United States. I had a very successful first meeting with President Obama in Washington as well as meeting the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and leading figures in Congress.

In domestic policy, the absolute priority for the Government and my Department is to tackle the economic crisis and to set Ireland on a path to recovery. The severity of the international financial crisis and our particular exposure to it in Ireland is fully recognised. OECD economies are forecast to contract by approximately 4% to 5% this year, with particular implications for an Irish economy already coping with the difficult adjustment under way in our construction industry. Exports of goods and services represent around four fifths of national output, more than twice the European average.

We have been badly hit by the fall in the value of sterling against the euro. The severity of the economic contraction we are experiencing is without precedent in Ireland and has few international parallels. We are clear in our resolve to take the difficult decisions necessary to return the economy to being driven by sustainable, export-led growth. I firmly believe the Government's strategy for dealing with this severe economic crisis is the right one. We have a comprehensive framework in place for tackling the twin challenges of the banking crisis and the deterioration in the public finances.

It is clear that, although painful, the tough decisions we are taking are beginning to have a positive effect. We are also firmly focused on protecting as many jobs as we can, restoring competitiveness to the way we do business, and supporting viable but vulnerable enterprises. Crucially, we must position Ireland to benefit fully from the global economic recovery when it comes. That is why we produced our smart economy framework in December last, setting clear direction for Ireland becoming more competitive, productive and energy efficient. The Ireland of the future will be a smart, high-value, export-led economy. It will have some of the world's leading research-intensive multinationals, a number of which will be Irish-owned.

The lesson from severe global recessions in the past is that as well as weathering economic storms, countries need to restructure their economies to target the next wave of economic growth. We have a number of important strengths on which to build. We continue to invest billions of euro in research and we must ensure we get maximum return on this investment. We will intensify our efforts towards creating the best research, innovation and commercialisation ecosystem in Europe, marketed internationally as "the innovation island". We have one of the youngest and most globalised populations in Europe. We intend to develop an enterprise culture from schoolchildren upwards and right through the universities.

My Department supports the work of the Cabinet committee on economic renewal in driving policy to address the crisis. I chair that committee. We are also driving real action to tackle climate change and to participate in the new green economy. Through the Cabinet committee on climate change and energy security, which I also chair, the Government provides oversight for the development and implementation of effective policies and measures which meet the energy, environmental and climate change priorities set out in the programme for Government.

Since the economic crisis of the 1980s, my Department has played a pivotal role as the social partnership process first helped us emerge from that crisis and then provided a stability and problem-solving approach that helped deliver the unprecedented economic success of the past decade. The Government believes strongly in the continuation of social partnership as an essential ingredient of our success, both as an economy and a society. Times have changed and new challenges have to be faced and new approaches adopted. There has been a significant effort by all the social partners over recent months to reach an agreement which would assist in the restoration of stability to the public finances, the maximisation of short-term economic activity and employment and an improvement in competitiveness.

Despite the complexities of the issues in question, all the parties to the negotiations share a desire to seek to formulate an appropriate agreement in as speedy a timeframe as possible. The very substantial agreement between the Government and the social partners is reflected in the terms of the framework for economic renewal agreed at the end of January. This shared understanding further emphasises the case for continuation with the model. In this context, discussions have been ongoing over recent weeks to elaborate on the agreed framework in the form of a new agreement. I am hopeful a basis will be found over the next few weeks for agreement at this particularly challenging time for the country.

Substantial progress continues to be made on the change and transformation agenda for the public service. My Department has an important leadership role at the centre of Government, working closely with the Department of Finance and senior management across the public service. This transformation agenda is an important part of the overall economic recovery programme. I am determined that its implementation will be progressed and that the public service will continue to contribute in the most effective way possible to our economic renewal.

I chair the Cabinet Committee on Transforming Public Services which is overseeing implementation of this very ambitious programme of change. I recently established a programme office in my Department which is supporting organisations across the public service in their transformation efforts and will also support the Government in driving, co-ordinating and monitoring progress on implementation.

Last November, I launched the report of the task force on the public service and the associated Government statement on transforming public services. This transforming public services, TPS, programme provides the framework for a comprehensive new approach to the reform of the public service. Its recommendations represent a challenging agenda for change in the public service and will be implemented over a three-year timeframe. They are designed to address the immediate priority of securing maximum value for public spending and laying the foundation for a complete overhaul of how the public service is managed and does its business to ensure it is efficient and effective in meeting the needs of citizens.

Also in November, we published the first three reports of the organisational review programme, or ORP. This programme is focused on individual organisations and complements the wider system-level OECD review of the public service. The emphasis of the ORP is on capacities at organisational level. The pilot phase of the reviews under that programme was conducted throughout 2008 and it covered three Departments — Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and Transport. Each Department has published an action plan to respond to the review findings. In 2009, a further five Departments and major offices are being reviewed. All Departments and major offices will be reviewed by the end of 2011.

Regulatory reform is also a key element of public service and broader economic reform. My Department promotes the better regulation agenda across Government in line with the action programme set out in the White Paper, Better Regulation. In particular, the better regulation unit is involved in supporting the use of regulatory impact analysis across the Government.

Work on better regulation extends to the existing regulatory framework and it is in this context the independent review of the economic regulatory environment was commissioned. The review, which has just been completed, addresses the comparative efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of key Irish economic regulators and is being considered by the Government.

This unprecedented crisis calls for unprecedented and imaginative change across the public sector as well as the private sector. In the course of the current social partnership discussions, I have stressed to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions the need for a comprehensive agreement where flexibility, redeployment of resources to priority areas, mobility across organisational boundaries and best practice are accepted so that we can see real improvements in how public services are delivered, especially through greater use of shared services and electronic delivery channels.

I wish to outline briefly the position on the Estimates for the independent legal offices for which I have certain administrative responsibilities and accountability to the House. The Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General is €17.5 million, of which €13.919 million is for the operating costs of the office and the remaining €3.581 million is provided by way of a grant-in-aid to the Law Reform Commission. The mission of the office is to provide the highest standard of professional legal services to the Government, Departments and offices. Its key programmes are the advisory counsel programme, the Parliamentary Counsel programme and the Law Reform Commission.

The 2009 Estimate for the Chief State Solicitor's office is €35.886 million. Its mission is to provide the highest standard of professional legal services to the Government, Departments and offices through the work of its solicitor services, which carry out a wide range of work in areas such as providing legal advice, litigation, representation of the State, assistance with property and other transactions and contract negotiations.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is €41.101 million. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, the cost of the local State solicitor service, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings. The office's main objective is to provide a prosecution service that is independent, fair and effective.

I commend these Estimates to the committee and thank the committee members for their attention. I hand over to the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, who will make a statement on the Estimates for the Central Statistics Office, for which he has ministerial responsibility.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Pat Carey)

As Minister of State at the Department the Taoiseach, I have special responsibility for the Central Statistics Office, CSO. The CSO is responsible for the collection, processing and publication of official statistics on economic, social and general conditions in Ireland. Whereas the main focus is on the statistical requirements of the Government, there is a very wide community of users of statistics. These include the social partners, numerous public bodies, business, universities, research institutes and the public. All of the CSO's releases and publications are available on-line and the CSO is continually improving its on-line services to promote the use of statistics.

There is a significant international dimension to the work of the CSO. The statistical demands resulting from EU regulations increase continually and other international bodies, including the OECD and the IMF, are important users of statistics. Net expenditure by the CSO in 2008 amounted to €49.653 million and the 2009 net allocation is €53.64 million. The increase is due to commencement of work on the 2011 census of population and the household budget survey in 2009.

All EU member states will be required to carry out a population census in 2011. Preparations for the 2011 census are well under way and this is the largest project undertaken by the CSO. A census pilot survey has just been completed in April and the CSO is evaluating the results. The pilot survey covered approximately 10,000 households out of the 1.5 million households in the State. The survey tested changes to the census fieldwork methods and the draft questionnaire for the 2011 census. The pilot questionnaire included changes to 15 of the 29 census questions and three new questions.

In developing the pilot survey and the final census questionnaire, the CSO is working with a representative census advisory group. Final proposals for census day 2011 and the questions to be included in the census will be presented to the Government by the CSO before the end of this year. As in 2006, the CSO aims to complete the full census publication programme for 2011 within 18 months and will make all the census tables available on-line.

The household budget survey, HBS, provides information on the structure of household income and expenditure. The expenditure results are used to update the weights for the calculation of the consumer price index and the EU harmonised index of consumer prices. The HBS is also an important source of data on income distribution. The survey is set to begin in August and data collection will continue for a 12-month period covering 2009 and 2010. The CSO's two regular household surveys — the quarterly national household survey and the EU survey on income and living conditions — are a major part on the CSO's ongoing work and provide vital information on labour market trends and social conditions.

As part of its overall strategy, the CSO is committed to managing and reducing the response burden on business. This needs to be balanced with the demand and need for statistical information on business sectors. The CSO is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing response burden, including greater co-ordination between surveys to reduce overlapping requirements and greater use of administrative data sources where available. The CSO is also providing more electronic reporting options to make it easier for business to provide the required information. For example, most payroll software packages now include an option for statistical reporting.

This approach is very much in line with the National Statistics Board's overall strategy for statistics which has emphasised the statistical potential of administrative records. The board is preparing its Strategy for Statistics 2009-2014, which will provide a strategic framework for official statistics over the next six years. A key feature of the board’s strategy has been the development of statistical capability across the public sector. I am confident the CSO will continue to work effectively with other Departments and agencies to meet the growing demand for statistics and to help support the effective use of statistics to inform policy.

The number of staff provided for in the CSO's Vote for 2009 is 805. This compares with 777 in 2008. The CSO is implementing strict vacancy management, in line with Government policy, but the small net increase in staffing reflects the major cyclical projects — the household budget survey and census preparations — which, as I said at the outset, form a major part of the CSO's work programme this year. I commend this Estimate to the committee and thank the committee members for their attention.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the Taoiseach for presenting his Estimate, along with his formidable team of 16 advisers. I apologise that we are again coming here to waste the Taoiseach's time because it is a meaningless process in which we are engaged. The Taoiseach has heard me express this view before. Perhaps I ought to elaborate on this. The Taoiseach's Department is at the heart of governance, as he said in his statement. This is where the corporate governance of the State is centred. In the last five years there have been extraordinary failures in the corporate governance strategy. It failed to contain the property bubble; it failed in its obligation to regulate the excesses in banking and protect export competitiveness; and it failed in its objective to achieve sustainable public finances. Public service reform not only failed but was also actually sabotaged by appalling decisions on decentralisation and benchmarking and the establishment of the HSE.

A series of strategy statements, including the health strategy, the climate change strategy and the decentralisation strategy, have been published by the Government, but it has failed to achieve anything set out in them. Even the road safety strategy did not deliver, yet we have had a presentation from the heart of corporate governance in Ireland that does not advert to any of these disappointments, failures or shortcomings or how they are to be corrected. We are here voting on the nod spending decided by the Government last year. This is a meaningless debate; there are no papers showing what choices were up for consideration. There is no record of efficiency for any of the programmes showing whether they are doing well or badly. It is an archaic and meaningless process in which we are engaged.

The trouble is that things are extremely serious for us. We cannot go on like this. We have already lost 250,000 jobs, according to the live register, and the ESRI tells us we are to lose another 250,000 by the end of next year. The Government's economic strategy is in tatters. Last December it produced what it believed was an economic framework for recovery. According to the documentation we have received, the Department of the Taoiseach was to oversee implementation of this plan. However, one then turns to the strategic policy objectives for 2009 which are concerned with how plans are to be carried out and sees that not a single strategic policy objective has been set for the economic framework plan. Everything should have been swept aside for this, because it is at the core of what the Department is about, but there is not a mention of it.

When it comes to addressing strategic policy areas, the report states, of the Department's achievement last year, that the Department "ensured that the structure maintained the focus on continued implementation and partnership working in the context of the developing economic challenges". Who could see this as an output against any standard of what is happening in the economy? Next year, it is stated, the Department will maintain "a strong cross-departmental focus on employment activation policies and activities". Who could see this as any sort of target we could measure in terms of success or failure when we come back next year? These are meaningless.

If the economic framework was the core priority, would we not seven months on have a report on what has been achieved to date? We need to know the structure for its implementation, who is in charge, what budget has been attached and what are the consequences of failure in any of the categories the Taoiseach says are critical in getting us through this. Physically, what infrastructure will be put in place by June, September, October and November? That is what a strategic plan should be about. Anyone outside the House would think so also. They would think someone would be driving it; that responsibility would be assigned; and that there would be consequences for agencies which fail and their managements. However, when one reads this document, one sees that is not the case. I would not like to ask the Taoiseach whether he has read it. I have not and do not expect he has because it is almost impenetrable. It is impossible to get a sense of where we are going with the core of corporate governance which is located in the Taoiseach's Department. I have scanned it and looked for the vital parts and sections in which I would expect to see the nuggets, but I have not been able to find them.

We have to get real about many of the processes that are failing us. One of these is the way in which we budget. We have a budget system that simply is not fit for a corner shop. It is pathetic. This volume is testament to its failure. The Taoiseach is looking for our approval for money he committed last year. The money has been spent; therefore, the Dáil is not debating choices that face us — whether we go this way or that way. There are no such choices facing us. This is telling us what has been done.

The output targets being reported are for 2009. We are receiving this report seven months after the Taoiseach committed the money. He is telling us after he has got the money what he deigns to define as targets. When one looks at these targets, one sees they are not targets in any meaningful way but activities. It is stated the Department will continue to support X and Y committee, continue to do this and that. It is all about activities. There is no process that has an evaluation; there is no person accountable whom one could say, at the end of a period, failed to deliver.

The Taoiseach spoke about regulation and said he had set himself a target of reducing the regulatory burden by 25%. However, the target for 2009 is to "prepare proposals for Government consideration in response to the findings of the independent Review of the Economic Regulatory Environment and action any commitments agreed by the Government". How about that for a target? It is barely English, whatever about conveying what will be achieved by the Department in driving the regulatory agenda. We are past the time for b-shit produced here and believing this is in some way adequate to address the crisis we are facing as a community. It is not good enough. It is wasting the Taoiseach's time. I do not blame the Taoiseach entirely, although I blame him to a considerable degree. I blame all the advisers and the system that has produced this and the OECD whitewash of the real problems. The failure to delegate, give people responsibility, hold them responsible and shift them if they are failing continues undisturbed in our public service system and the OECD has not addressed this. There is a lot of consultant gobbledygook and the change we need is not being seriously dealt with. We are in desperate straits.

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Ten minutes were given to the Taoiseach and his advisers and they spoke for half an hour. I am entitled——

Chairman

They did not, actually.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am entitled——

Chairman

They spoke for 25 minutes.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Yes. They were given 15 minutes and the Chairman did not intervene at any point. Let us have equity in the way the Chairman treats people. We are all equals here. We all have the same mandate and are entitled to speak.

I feel strongly about the points I have been making. It is not personal. I have been saying this almost since I came into the House, yet every year I come back and it is the same shambolic presentation. It is not good enough and must change because we are playing for huge stakes. The country is falling around our ears and we must get to grips with this. It must start here in this system. As elected Members, we cannot stand over a system in which we are not properly scrutinising the spending of public money. We have no opportunity to scrutinise it. We are not examining and making choices. This is a shambles.

Whoever wrote this document — I am sure it was not the Taoiseach — started off by claiming a 27% reduction in the 2008 Estimates. Some spin-doctor in a press office has come up with that figure. It is not the case, as the Taoiseach knows as well as I do. There is no 28% reduction. There is a 1% reduction as the Estimates show, not a 27% reduction.

Chairman

The Deputy may proceed as the Labour members are not present.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am not taking the time of Labour Party members. I am taking equitable time.

Chairman

While the Labour Party members are not present the Deputy may continue.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am taking equitable time. I do not expect the Taoiseach to be interrupted, nor do I expect to be interrupted unless I am being unreasonable in my use of time.

Chairman

Carry on.

Deputy Richard Bruton

The Chairman does not have to tell me I am entitled to carry on. What happened was that the tribunals did not cost what was assigned to them. It was a timing issue in regard to the cost of tribunals which resulted in a saving of €6 million or €7 million and that explains the change. Some scribbler in the Taoiseach's Department decided to present it as a saving. Given the media are not present, no one will see it.

The Taoiseach has been Minister for Finance and he has seen the flaws in the way we do our budgeting. He has to be frustrated but perhaps one does not get so frustrated on that side. At the very least he has to get the sense we are not living in the real world. If we want to talk about a response to the election, it is not about tough decisions and the people not understanding them. It is a critique of politics and the way it is being done. If the Opposition has a share of that, so be it. That said, we need to move away from this meaningless process to one where budgeting is about people approaching Ministers and the Oireachtas and saying they will deliver something if given a specific amount of money. In turn the Oireachtas should agree but ask those people to report back on how they getting on after three months, six months and at the end of the year. If they do not deliver, there are consequences. That is not happening.

The Taoiseach is aware the 2007 output statements were hopeless. Some 40% of the output targets were not delivered by Departments but there were no consequences. What change did it make in the way Estimates were put forward for the next year? It made none. What Ministers or Secretaries General had to step up and admit they failed? None of them had to. Every one of them got their bonus payments until they were brought to an end. Whether Departments were successful or otherwise, they received their bonuses. They were shared out each year and everyone was entitled to 10%. Even the Department of Health and Children, which failed miserably, received its 10% bonuses. That is not good enough and we must move away from that and design a better system. We should not just constrain it with no recruitment and all the other constraints which are needed, but have new thinking about the way we do our business.

I apologise for going on too long. I appreciate the Taoiseach is more tolerant than the Chair. We need engagement on this issue. One thing on which we are agreed is that we are all in this together and we must come up with better solutions. Irrespective of who is in office, these problems must be confronted and the broken systems have to be fixed.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. We will move on to the individual programmes and corresponding subheads on the five Votes. The first is Vote 2, Strategic Objective 1 — supporting the Government, and subhead A8, information society, e-Cabinet and other initiatives. If there are any comments or questions I will take them.

Deputy Richard Bruton

The logical question is whether we have a set of actual targets for which people have been assigned responsibility, which are stretching, and whether we can say the targets have been achieved in this area.

The Taoiseach

I have listened with interest to what Deputy Bruton has had to say. He has a view on how the Estimates should be presented and I introduced some reforms which have not met with his approval. We are not looking at an Estimate on the Government itself. The Department of the Taoiseach, as the Deputy would know better than most, is a co-ordinating Department apart from having its own specific areas of responsibility in terms of economic and social policy, as Head of Government and heading up various Cabinet committees. I will not go over what was in my statement. The Estimate is about the day-to-day activity in the Department. The wider policy issues and the strategies across Departments are issues Deputy Bruton wishes to discuss but are obviously issues we can and do discuss in plenary session, whether through parliamentary questions, general economic statements or general economic policy debates.

I have no problem in responding to the Deputy's views on those matters, especially when he refers to failures when I would claim, for example, on climate change strategy, we are having success and will meet our targets. On the health strategy we are proposing reforms. We are in social partnership discussions which have not been concluded precisely because we want further commitments and agreement on costs, redeployment, flexibility and the need for reforms that will add to the initial implementation of transforming public services, which is about working on public procurement issues and shared services. My Department has been innovative in that area, has been very successful and has brought about real cost reductions in terms of the Estimates and structural change. It is leading the way in terms of best practice, a wider application of which I would like to see across the service. It is similar with e-Government and a range of initiatives.

I do not accept the contention that it is a shambolic presentation. It is a question of whether we are here to discuss the wider strategic issues of Government, which are wider policy issues, or to discuss specifically the bones of the Estimate and what money is being allocated where, which is precisely the Deputy's critique. The various allocations are set out in the Estimate. The Department of Finance Estimates not have changed much in terms of the black and white presentation but the basic facts are the same. Members may ask any questions they wish in respect of the various subheads. In fairness, the Deputy's critique about what targets have been set on a range of policies can best be directed towards line Departments and economic policy areas where, through the agencies and offices directly under their ministerial responsibility, public funds are provided for which there are specific outputs which are reflected in the output statements.

The output statement for my Department reflects my co-ordinating role. While as Head of Government I have a primus inter pares role and one that I exercise in my own particular way, the Estimate discussion is specifically about the public moneys being expended on staffing, the areas of activity in which we are engaged and the few specific agencies under the aegis of my Department. On the issue of where the funds are being spent, clearly the Department of the Taoiseach is not a large Department in that respect, nor should it be because the main emphasis is on the Departments of Health and Children, Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and all the other major Departments of State which are in the process of delivering public services.

Our position on driving the public service reform agenda is one we take seriously and we have a framework in which to do that. A Cabinet committee system, which I chair, enables me to proceed with it and ensure other Departments which have an important role in that area are pursuing it and proceeding with it as envisaged. In the first instance, the Vote being discussed is a Vote on the Department of the Taoiseach, not a Vote on the Government. We are part of the corporate structure within the framework of collective responsibility of Government and our role is to work closely with other Departments whose activities and reports are reflected in the outputs of their departmental statements. Rather than say there is an absence relating to certain policy outcomes or objectives on the broad economic and social policy areas, those are provided for in the line departmental statements for which there is direct ministerial responsibility on an ongoing basis.

Chairman

We are on Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I will come back to that. The truth is different. The Taoiseach says we are discussing the allocation of money now and that we discuss its strategic direction elsewhere. That is the problem. The Taoiseach has put his finger on the problem. This process is supposed to be where money meets the strategic objectives and where the two are matched together. We need to know if, in terms of our money commitments, we are delivering our strategic objectives. That is what the process is failing to do, not just the Taoiseach's Department. That connection is not being made.

The Taoiseach

I want to respond to that question.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I want to make a further comment. The Taoiseach's Department cannot wash its hands of the matter and argue that it has a co-ordinating role for others and that it does not matter what happens. The Taoiseach published the economic framework document which states the Cabinet sub-committee will oversee its implementation. Therefore, the Taoiseach's document, the strategic statement for 2009, must include a statement on how he will do this; otherwise it is meaningless. When we try to talk to people working in the areas of finance, enterprise and employment, telecommunications or anywhere else, they will not answer questions on the framework, how its objectives are being met, who is driving it, how it will work and how the actions taken in respect of energy, enterprise and employment will deliver on our objectives. The Taoiseach must do this. He is not offering us any inkling of how the €32 million put into his Department will be reflected in an economic strategy that is seen to work and where, in six or nine months' time, we will be able to see that things are happening because the Taoiseach is driving them. He cannot wriggle away and say it his not his job.

The Taoiseach

I am not seeking to wriggle away. I am afraid we are at crossed purposes. It depends on where one draws the line. I am making the point that in respect of the agencies and personnel under my Department, this Estimate relates to the allocation of money for the personnel concerned and what they are doing.

On the question of the smart economy framework, it will be proceeded with collectively by the Cabinet. There are many ways and means by which a discussion can take place on it, including here. The Cabinet sub-committee meets and proceeds with the strategic framework to drive economic policy. That is precisely what it is doing. There is no specific allocation of money for the Cabinet sub-committee because that is not the issue. The issue is what the National Economic and Social Development Office and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation are doing and concerns the various headings to which money is specifically ascribed. That is the debate we are having here. In the debate one can refer to broader policy issues, but the allocation of money is for specific purposes, including administration and other costs. As the Deputy knows, there are Departments of State which have economic agencies under their aegis, to which the budgets are being applied. The Dáil is authorising payments to these agencies in the departmental Estimates. That is the simple point I am making. If members want to have a wider discussion, there is no problem, we can have that discussion.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I am making the simple point that this is not just about spending but about output statements, in particular the Taoiseach's targets for next year. He claims he is co-ordinating improvements in regulation, yet he comes up with a gobbledegook statement on what he will do in 2009. Surely, he cannot stand over this. Where are the annual output statements for the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? Even on their own terms, can we see what they are doing? Does the Taoiseach have these statements? They have not been included in the information I have received.

The Taoiseach

With respect, I have brought forward a statement which indicates the moneys that have been spent and the activities of the Departments involved. If members have queries, I will answer them to the best of my ability.

On the question of regulation, I have informed the Deputy that a report has come to fruition in recent weeks. It has to be considered by the Government. It will take decisions and, on the basis of these decisions, we can communicate to the House at Question Time, or in any other way, the benefits of that particular exercise. Until the deliberative process has been completed, I cannot say any more.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Other than that, there is no ongoing work programme on regulation. The Government has been talking about regulatory reform since the cows came home. There will be no targets until we receive the report.

The Taoiseach

There are existing targets, as the Deputy knows. He mentioned one. I do not want to get into a direct argument with him, but he mentioned an existing target of reaching a figure of 25%.

Deputy Richard Bruton

With respect, the Taoiseach came here to discuss the revised Estimates for public services and the 2009 annual output statements. We are discussing what will be achieved in the next year in the areas for which the Taoiseach has responsibility, yet we do not have adequate information. Perhaps Fianna Fáil people might feel they have adequate information, but if we are to have a meaningful debate on whether we will achieve the strategic targets, an exercise which the Taoiseach says he is at the heart of, we must have the documents required and they must be meaningful. We cannot sign off on a figure of €32 million without having some sense of what will be achieved in the Taoiseach's core task of co-ordinating the work of the Government. There are elements for which the Taoiseach can say he is holding people to account for delivery, but there must be a sense of direction; otherwise we are all engaged in a meaningless process.

The Taoiseach

With respect, the Estimates for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment provide the means for the Deputy to address the issue of whether the target of 25% is being met because that Department has been given front line responsibility to achieve it. If the Deputy wants to have a general discussion with me about it, that is fine, but the fact is that Department has been given responsibility. If he wants to ascribe every departmental responsibility to me because I have a co-ordinating function, we can have a discussion about the matter. However, I am trying to focus the discussion as best I can. The Deputy can ask whatever questions he wishes and I will answer them to the best of my ability on the basis of the departmental Estimates in front of me and having regard to the activities for which I am responsible. As the leader of the Government, I am responsible for broad policy direction across all Departments, but that is a wider debate.

Deputy Frank Fahey

With regard to transforming public services, the Taoiseach has said the programme provides the framework for adopting a comprehensive new approach to reform of the public service. I wish to quote from an article written in 1961 by Seán Lemass on the organisation behind the economic programme. He said the quality of Ireland's civil servants was very high. It still is today. He asked if the aims of the Government and the discharge of its responsibilities in regard to economic expansion should be more fully realised by changing the structure of the Civil Service and the established systems of administration. He said he had spoken of making every Department of the Government a development corporation in the particular field of national activity entrusted to it. He had in mind the bringing about of a change of attitude and outlook among civil servants and a new psychological approach to the Government's development responsibilities. He concluded by saying it was true to say that in some Departments there was still a tendency to wait for new ideas to walk in through the door. I put it to the Taoiseach that that statement is as true today as it was in 1961. The programme for transforming the public service which I accept is making progress is not radical enough to give us the modern, visionary and courageous public service we need to meet the challenges facing the country. I acknowledge that good work is being done and that we have excellent people in the public service. However, the structure in which they operate stifles progress. There is a need to go back to the points made by Seán Lemass in 1961 and change the fundamental structure and psychology of the public service.

The Taoiseach

When one quotes Seán Lemass, one usually responds approvingly. He was a visionary leader and a political giant of his time. The transforming public service agenda was the subject of a review conducted by the OECD and an important benchmarking exercise that pointed to some of the strengths of the public service. It also noted the real challenges confronting it such as the need for greater flexibility to improve the performance of organisations and individuals, the need to modernise public service delivery mechanisms and the need for people to be open to this change and to work with other organisations in achieving it.

A critical factor for the public service is the creation of flexibility in the deployment of people, assets and other resources. There are reasons for that in terms of principles of public accountability in the past, and to ensure that public moneys were being dealt with in a transparent way. Rigidities and organisational arrangements have developed over time. It is now timely to consider all aspects of those systems and to rearrange and reform the public service. As part of public service reform, there is a need to build competencies and leadership within the service as well. It is necessary to build an approach which ensures that the engagement with the public service and those who work in it, is a productive one that achieves output rather than the notion that we can impose change. That is not the way forward. That approach would meet with resistance and outcomes that do not provide the ownership of the problem and the need for people to adopt a new mindset, corporately and collectively in a way that will produce more effective public services, which is the purpose of the exercise in the first place.

It has become fashionable to criticise social partnership in all of its aspects. No process is perfect nor without challenges to meet, and there is a need to adapt to new methods in the new and changed circumstances in which we find ourselves. Through a partnership approach, public service reform provides us with the best means of a sustained change programme that will be and can be implemented. The benefit of the transforming public services agenda is that it is a three-year timeframe. It is not a rolling incremental, permissive programme that advances according as agreement is reached. We need agreement but the process will be driven politically and it needs to be done on an inclusive basis. The process has timelines. We have invited people to discuss how we will proceed on a system-wide basis rather than a pilot basis. We have a beginning, middle and end to that process. People have outlined that for us and we are now working on that basis. That is the best means by which we can gauge the success of the process.

All of us who want to see efficient and effective public services do so precisely because we know there is less money available now than was historically the case for the past ten years. We know we need to get more from less. We can only do that by changing practices, and getting people to work more collaboratively together. We are trying to implement many reforms in the health sector, such as the change to consultants' contracts, the need for clinical leadership in hospitals and for people to come together in a multidisciplinary way. That is necessary to provide successful home care packages, to keep people out of the acute hospital system and to keep people at home for as long as is possible. Home care packages are an example of where the reforms taking place can be successful but they need to be more uniformly provided across the service in a range of areas. That is the way to get business done.

I agree that there is a need for change and redeployment. That is precisely the agenda that is on the table in the social partnership discussions today. Everyone comes to the table with various priorities. It is a priority for the Government to get real commitments to change in those areas, as a condition for its engagement in an agreement process. Others will bring their issues to the table also. This is the template for a transformational change in the public services. It needs to be done in the interests of defending public services. For those who put a value on the public service ethos, as many of us do, it must focus on its ability to change to suit current circumstances and to provide a level of service that is the most effective and efficient we can provide. That is the best means of engendering public confidence in the continuation of services through the public system. The ethos behind the provision of public service is generating equality of access, making sure there is an inclusive approach and that services are provided to those who need them. We need to transform agreement in principle to practice on the ground. That is the frustrating aspect that currently needs to be addressed.

There is a commitment in the Towards 2016 ten-year framework document, with all of the resonances conveyed by that date, to deconstruct and reconstruct the public services around the citizen by 2016. The aim is to have a citizen-centred approach, services that are for the public, as distinct from having been built up over time and organised around the needs of service providers rather than those who require services. That is a big challenge. It is vital that this agenda is successfully implemented, and that there is a template for that agenda, a timeframe and a set of actions to be implemented. We are in the first year of a three-year period.

The need for redeployment and flexibility is part of the current discussions. Feeding into that in terms of public service reform is the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes, because what emerges from that and what decisions the Government takes, arising out of that, by definition, will help reshape and restructure expenditure programmes, and how we put the right people in the right jobs in the right numbers, in accordance with the priorities established by the Government. That is a challenge that must be faced. A new national operations unit has been established in the Office of Public Works to centralise public service procurement arrangements for common goods and services. An e-Government policy has been established within the Department of Finance. All Departments are having their spending reviewed under the organisational review programmes. That is a substantive agenda that needs to be addressed.

Chairman

Does Deputy Fahey wish to add anything?

Deputy Frank Fahey

The response was comprehensive.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about line 8.8, which relates to administration, value for money and policy reviews. Why is less money being spent on the area of getting value for money within Departments? It has reduced from €25,000 to €1,000. How much money has been set aside for transforming public services and the quality customer service initiative? When will there be feedback on those initiatives? Are they part of the three-year review of transforming the public sector? When will the Taoiseach get the report and when will he be in a position to introduce change to this area so that there is a single point of contact?

The Taoiseach

Deputy Flanagan will be glad to know that no more reports are required on the area. It is a question of implementing the recommendations set out in the Transforming Public Services document. That is the agenda to which we are working. I chair a Cabinet sub-committee on the issue, which meets regularly so that we can chart the progress that is being made on the implementation of the recommendations set out. I have indicated some of the initiatives that have been taken, as has been suggested in terms of getting that job done. There are people in the programme office from my Department so there is no extra cost. Other designated officials have been assigned various responsibilities, as set out in the recommendations of that report, to progress different agenda items. There are some designated staff from those Departments working in the programme office but they continue to be paid by the parent Departments so there is no extra cost in setting up that arrangement.

On the value for money review it is important that it would show value for money. The change in the amount refers to the finishing off a particular review in the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, and therefore the amount is less this year than last year because it was being finalised.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Has the McCarthy process examined the Department of the Taoiseach and, if so, are choices being presented for consideration on how money should be spent in that Department for next year's Estimates? Does the Taoiseach propose to publish the McCarthy reviews? Where are the output statements for the Attorney General's office, the Chief State Solicitor, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Central Statistics Office? They are not in my pack and I do not know if they have been supplied to the committee. I note an explanation of the spending has been supplied but there is no output statement, at least not in my document. Perhaps I have misread them. However, I am sure the Taoiseach's officials will be able to point members to them.

On the economic framework document, which is core to Government strategy, what is the implementation process? Is a team of senior public servants driving it? What is the actual process and does it have timelines? Will someone be able to say what has been achieved in the first quarter? If this was a bank, it would set up a steering group which would have clear targets and budgets. On the crucial question raised by Deputy Fahey of being able to move people, decentralisation collapsed for the State companies because they never came up with a way of moving a person from FÁS to the IDA or wherever. Will the 2010 Estimates include a process whereby people can be moved? Are we on track to have such a process? For example, if there is a non-performing programme, can those assigned to it be moved elsewhere?

There is a 50% cut in expenditure on the social partnership support programme — non-pay. Was that because there was no agreement and expected activities did not occur or has there been an actual reduction in programmes?

The Taoiseach

We have been interviewed by the McCarthy team but as yet there is no recommendation from it. Those deliberations will feed into its report which is due at the end of the month or early next month. The Cabinet will have to consider that report as part of its deliberative process ahead of the budget. I cannot say whether it will be published, pending Government decisions, as it contains recommendations being made for Government and ultimately Government makes the decisions. To avoid any public confusion, it is a matter for decision by Government whether to publish prior to decisions being taken. It is important to emphasise, regardless of whether the report is published, that ultimate political responsibility for what recommendations are accepted, modified or whatever is a matter for Government.

The main headings in the economic framework document refer to fiscal strategy, public service reform, research and development, a fiscal framework for venture capital, which was incorporated in the Finance Bill, the role of green enterprise and energy efficiency, all of which are reported on separately. There is a Cabinet committee on economic renewal that provides a co-ordinating mechanism for that work to be continued, addressed and progressed.

Deputy Richard Bruton

One thing the former Taoiseach said when leaving office, in an interesting aside in this forum, was that one of the problems when Cabinet decided on a strategy was that the system did not assign anyone with proper designated responsibility for implementation. It would be worth getting an official to look at the statement he made last year. He said that was one of the regrets he had. Where it wanted to drive change, whether it be climate or otherwise, someone had to be assigned responsibility and a budget, but not loaded with all the other departmental issues such as putting out fires, as it were, and so on. If the Taoiseach is serious about this economic framework he needs a structure to drive it other than a Cabinet sub-committee which has a thousand and one other things to do.

The Taoiseach

In fairness, Ministers have to drive it. At the end of the day the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has a strong responsibility and is exercising it well in terms of driving the green enterprise agenda. Some of these issues are not specific to one Department.

Deputy Richard Bruton

That is why they fall through the crevices.

The Taoiseach

I do not accept that we will fall through the crevices on this smart economy framework because it is an imperative, in terms of identifying the economic drivers of the future, that goods and services be provided for the future. It is a document that emphasises the importance of providing and facilitating an ecosystem for entrepreneurship and building businesses and identifying how research can be applied to goods and services in the future. I will check on what the former Taoiseach had to say on these matters.

Deputy Richard Bruton

He may not be as popular now as he was but he is still worth listening to.

The Taoiseach

I think his record will stand the test of time for any economic management of the economy during that period.

Deputy Richard Bruton

The Taoiseach is answering my question. Please do not move on until he finishes.

The Taoiseach

The reduction in funding in the social partnership budget was in respect of the cost of a promotional campaign for workplace innovation. The National Centre for Partnership and Performance was involved in that campaign and it has been concluded. We considered that it did not require to be continued.

Deputy Richard Bruton

There were two other questions on the output statements of the——

The Taoiseach

I refer the Deputy to pages 36 and 37 of the annual output statement which gives details of various outputs, advice on advisory files and advice on litigation files of the Attorney General's office. Page 63 of the annual output statement shows the outputs for the Chief State Solicitor's office in terms of activity and what work is being done for that money. Page 71 shows the outputs for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I will have a look at them. They are not presented in the standard way so it is more difficult to examine them. My last question was about being able to move people.

The Taoiseach

That is part of the discussion we are having at present and forms part of the wider agenda on public service reform. We need the ability to examine agreements in existence for some time which form the basis of the current industrial relations framework in the public service because it is clear that people could be moved to areas such as social welfare, for example. It is important to do some of that but we must do it more quickly. We need new arrangements in place. In our public services and in our health system, for example, we need various professional groups who would be prepared to change arrangements that would enable them move more freely between community care and hospital care. There is a need to——

Deputy Richard Bruton

What about from one agency to another?

The Taoiseach

Sorry. In regard to decentralisation——

Deputy Richard Bruton

No, not decentralisation. I am talking about where we wanted to move someone from the Health Service Executive to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, which is an entirely separate employer.

The Taoiseach

As the Deputy knows, there are complications in all that because standards and conditions of employment can be different. Those industrial relations issues must be addressed in some sort of agreed framework. We cannot impose that in the absence of agreement without getting industrial relations outcomes and causing industrial relations problems that might mean we would have less output.

We have a voluntary system of industrial relations. There is a recognition that this is a legitimate agenda item for social partnership. We believe, as a Government, that we must see more flexibility and openness to redeployments. We know it is an involved and complex industrial relations issue but one on which we must try to make progress.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is there a process in train or is it sidelined because social partnership is not on track?

The Taoiseach

As the Deputy is aware, we are trying to determine whether we can conclude a programme of fiscal stabilisation and social solidarity with the social partners across a range of issues still in discussion and which have been in discussion for some time, including a private sector pay agreement, the question of pensions and pay, job retention funds and so on.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is Government, as an employer, in negotiation with the representative of the Taoiseach's own employees on the ability to move to areas of higher priority from areas of lower priority? Is that process derailed, so to speak, by the higher level social partnership breakdown or has the Taoiseach a process ongoing to try to crack what——

The Taoiseach

Far from being derailed, negotiations are proceeding on specific redeployments from amalgamating bodies, and some have been concluded in some cases. On the process of reform of implementing decisions already taken on amalgamation, progress is being made in ensuring that is done in a way that allows us redeploy people.

More generally, in the social partnership discussions there is the need to address this issue specifically across the service to get a greater commitment to flexibility and redeployment than is available under current agreements. That is a challenging agenda but is one that needs to be addressed. Part of our discussion is trying to determine whether that can be cracked because in the current fiscal situation where pay and pensions are 38% of total budget, control mechanisms must be put in place. In addition, we need greater flexibilities around workplace issues to achieve the outputs we want. That is a legitimate agenda item within a wider range of discussions on other issues, some of which I have mentioned. If we could get agreement, it would provide us with a means of proceeding in a planned way and get some of the necessary changes.

Chairman

If there are no further questions on Vote 2 we will move to Vote 3, the Office of the Attorney General.

Chairman

Are there any questions on this Vote?

Deputy Richard Bruton

On the workload of the Office of the Attorney General, if I am looking at the right one it seems to have had an extraordinarily successful year or is this figure misleading? It set a target of advice on litigation on 1,300 files and it had almost 50% more. Regarding advice on drafting files, it trebled what was expected but it does not provide targets for the following year. What are we to make of those figures? Should we be giving a huge bonus to the Attorney General for this exceptional performance or is it that the office set very low targets in anticipation that it would have some headroom, so to speak?

The Taoiseach

The first point I would make is that we have an exceptional Attorney General.

Deputy Richard Bruton

He looks to be delivering the results, if these are real targets.

The Taoiseach

In fairness, a great deal of work has been done. As the Deputy is aware, unfortunately, for reasons in the past, systems failures occurred but reorganisation of that office has brought about far more modern and updated systems and investment has been made to assist in improving output and increasing efficiencies over a number of years. There is a clients' service charter that sets out the timescales for responses to clients, for example, which is helpful in ensuring the volume of requests are met. Footnotes 5 and 6 on page 36 are helpful. Outputs indicate that the targets set out in 2008 were based on new files projected to be opened during the year.

Deputy Richard Bruton

We are not really comparing like with like.

The Taoiseach

In fairness, the 2008 statistics for output achieved are based on work carried out by the office on files, irrespective of the year in which the file was created. That provides the extra——

Deputy Richard Bruton

If we are to have meaningful targets for next year it should agree a basis and provide us with some sort of an estimate. If a target is set on one definition and the achievement is set on a different one, that does not tell us anything.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy looks at page 37, in fairness, it indicates in its output statement that an independently undertaken client survey in respect of the services being provided by the advisory council in April 2008 found that the performance ratings in the delivery of services increased on the findings of a similar survey in 2006 under all factors, including communications, responsiveness-timeliness, accuracy and quality of outputs and service delivery. That is noteworthy in a situation where client expectations had also increased in all four areas. That sets out that there are some benchmarks and objectives.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Can I ask about one closer to our own needs, namely, the shortcomings in respect of Bills published and statutory instruments completed? There appears to be a significant shortfall in that seven Bills and 55 statutory instruments fell off the radar, so to speak. I am aware this area has always been somewhat of a logjam. The Chief Whip would probably be more familiar with it but I understand we were contracting out and getting reasonable turnaround in respect of legislative programmes but this would suggest we have not actually cracked it. The Chief Whip might wish to comment on that.

Deputy Pat Carey

The output in the Attorney General's Office has improved significantly, admittedly after a slow start last year. A total of 16 Bills awaiting different Stages of debate are before the House and I anticipate that, uniquely, all the Bills on the A list will be published before we rise for the summer recess. A good deal of emergency legislation was drafted this year by the office. Some legislation required complicated drafting, which needed to be done on Committee Stage, as in the case of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Bill and the various financial Bills produced.

Deputy Richard Bruton

It seems from what is outlined in the output statement that those in this office are settling for a lower target for next year. They did not deliver what they promised last year and instead of indicating what went wrong and how it could be corrected, they are saying the target should be brought down to match what was done.

Deputy Pat Carey

The Deputy spoke about contracting out work. Less work is being contracted out now than was contracted out previously. In-house expertise has been developed under the guidance of the Parliamentary Council and the Attorney General, which is leading to a speedier output of legislation. The targets are still quite ambitious for the coming year.

The Taoiseach

I am sure all members will accept, as I am sure will the Deputy in his role as finance spokesperson, not only the number and volume of Bills produced but the complexity, immediacy and urgency of them, which continues to require the deployment of significant resources. I am sure no members would adversely comment on the fact that this priority needs to be proceeded with in order to draft urgent legislation that needs to be brought to the House in view of the serious situation to which the Deputy adverted earlier. Whether it is on the regulatory side in the interests of overcoming systems failures or governance problems in important areas of public administration, be it the Central Bank, the Financial Regulator or the question of the National Asset Management Agency, this is an important resource that must be prioritised. In that respect, I would not mind if some Bills are not published once the Bills in this area are enacted and, hopefully, successfully implemented.

Chairman

I appreciate that the Taoiseach may have to leave before the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey. We will move on to Vote 13 — Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Have members any questions on it?

Deputy Richard Bruton

The output achieved by this office is given in the output statement but no target is given for this year or for next year. We are told what the office did. Some comparison of legal costs is given, which I presume refers to internal versus external costs. I am not sure to what it refers. There is nothing with which to compare the key table on the office's outputs and no targets are set for next year. We will probably be given another list of what the office did next year rather than any target to indicate whether it was the output expected.

The Taoiseach

This is a demand-led service. In terms of the output of the office for this year, it states that notwithstanding a reduction in staffing, the office is committed to maintaining an operational capability to service, which will be comparable to that achieved in 2008. There will be increased productivity on that front alone. This is a demand-led service, as the Deputy is aware. I am not suggesting that the Deputy is saying otherwise, but in the case of this office it is not a question of how many widgets are produced this year compared to next year.

Deputy Richard Bruton

There needs to be something to shed some light on whether these figures represent effective, efficient timely output. Simply telling us that the office will be capable and will meet its needs is not sufficient. If what the office has given in this output statement is not a fair test of its effectiveness and efficiency, it should come up with a different test and present it in order that we can have something against which it will be judged, rather than having its representatives come in each year and say that they did what they were asked to do to the best of their ability and they will do the same again next year.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy refers to the indicative costs in Appendix 1, he will note it is a good indication of efficiency in terms of what the CSSO costs would be compared to external party costs on various issues. That indicates that the office is performing reasonably well. I take the Deputy's point in this respect. We can discuss with the office the provision of other more detailed criteria to assist the committee in order that it to be more satisfied in this respect.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is that comparison indicating that the office does that work much cheaper? In the example given of a public law judicial review, is the office saying that it did for €6,000 work that it would cost somebody else €90,000 to do?

The Taoiseach

It is outlining the internal costs of doing work as against the costs of having a junior counsel, etc.

Deputy Richard Bruton

Is the Taoiseach sure that is what it is saying? These figures appear to represent reporting on cases and what the office paid. I believe these are cost effectiveness comparisons.

The Taoiseach

The office has indicated the cost of such work on the basis of having an internal office and pointed out that if this work were to be contracted out, the cost would be much higher. That is the point that is being made.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I do not want to delay the meeting, but that does not appear to be what those in this office are claiming. It is simply reporting on cases in these different areas and what their representation cost as against what the representation by another party would cost. It does not mean they are comparing like with like.

The Taoiseach

The bottom line is the State's costs are much less than those of the party who sued us.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I do not know anything about this, the Taoiseach would know much more about it. The office indicates that in terms of public law —habeas corpus, it spent €422 while some of the others spent €10,000. I do not believe that is a comparison of like with like. That is a comparison of the cost in a case where the office presumably simply filed something in the court while the other party mounted a defence. I am not disputing the accuracy of these figures, but if the Taoiseach is presenting this as an example of better cost effectiveness in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor than outside it, we need to compare like with like. The office is clearly not comparing like with like in this respect.

The Taoiseach

One cannot compare like with like if I am representing the State and someone else is representing privately a defendant or a plaintiff. I can have this checked further and communicate with the Deputy on it. What I would take from this comparison is that it is simply indicating the cost to the State of having to defend or prosecute cases as against what third parties have to pay. I am not saying it is a comparison of like with like. Thankfully, it seems to be costing much less for us on our side of the case than it is for the other party's side.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally

I am curious about a reference on page 73 of the outputs statement. We all like cases referred to this office to be dealt with as soon as possible. In the outputs table in the section on prosecutorial decisions taken within target timescales, the middle statistic given for the 2008 output target was 50% of cases within four weeks and the office achieved 67% of cases within four weeks, which seems good but they are only targeting 50% of cases in this respect for this year. I would have thought that if the office is achieving 67% within that period, it would try to achieve a higher target for the next year.

The Taoiseach

I take the Deputy's point. The profile of cases varies. It is difficult in statistical analysis, as Deputy Bruton said, to compare like with like. Different cases have different levels of complexity. The time it takes to issue directions varies depending on the complexity of the file submitted and the volume of the files dealt with depend on the rate at which matters are dealt with by the courts. A backlog of cases in court can be a factor. One has to get a case to court to settle it. I can ask for a further note on that for the Deputy's assistance.

Deputy Joan Burton

I apologise for not being here before now but I was speaking in the Dáil.

With regard to this Vote for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the other Votes, will the Taoiseach commission work to review Acts such as the Residential Institutions Redress Act and the issue of people committed to institutions carrying committal orders and, in some cases, convictions, having been convicted of legal offences that probably today would not be considered a legal offence? The events of today are important to the people involved and their children and grandchildren. I asked the Taoiseach this question previously and I am not sure of the mechanism by which it can be done. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has said this has been done, in effect, through the various reforms of children's law. However, in the minds of many of the people who were in institutions it has not been done. It is a legacy issue for them and their families. These are Votes for the various offices dealing with legal affairs. If it was possible to examine how this issue might be addressed, it would be significant for the people who were in institutions because it is not clear to them that their committal orders, records or however they are described have been expunged.

Chairman

It is a sensitive subject, but it is not part of our brief.

Deputy Joan Burton

I know. I am just asking the Taoiseach to give some consideration to it. I do not expect him to give me a complete answer. However, given what is happening and that we are discussing these legal offices of the State, it is something on which he could have all-party agreement.

The Taoiseach

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions acts independently in the prosecution of offences. With regard to the issue raised by the Deputy, the redress board and redress scheme were brought forward precisely because of the urgency advocated by the people who had been in these residential institutions. It was a means to avoid the courts system on an individual basis and by which redress could be obtained on a comparative basis with what would be available in the courts for whatever abuse people unfortunately suffered in these situations. It was less adversarial. It would not be right to claim that people simply went to the board and were not queried. They would say they were queried quite robustly in some cases on these matters. However, it certainly was a less adversarial system than what one would encounter in a court where every proof would be strenuously contested or involve a line of questioning which would be even more upsetting than the line of questioning to establish the fact of abuse that was the reality at the redress board. This is an issue on which survivors have commented, but it was certainly a course with better advantage in that respect than the courts system would have brought about, with its traditions, processes and procedures, for each individual who would have had to provide the required legal standard of proof for damages and compensation to be paid. It is important to make the point that it was provided for that reason and purpose and that it did at least serve in providing for a cohort of people access to redress which would otherwise have been difficult to obtain, both in terms of the time period involved and the proofs required in the courts.

Second, with regard to the expunging of records, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, at the meeting with the victims, made the point that the various Acts passed at the time to enable the redress scheme to be put in place covered some of these points. However, the issue was articulated at my recent meeting with them. I will consider all the points made at that meeting as we examine how we can advance matters for their benefit.

Chairman

We will proceed to the Vote for the Central Statistics Office.

Deputy Terence Flanagan

Before doing so, I have a question on Vote 14. Page 73 of the annual output statement, relating to the decisions taken within target timescales, indicates the 2008 output target, the 2008 outturn and the 2009 output targets. Why were the target percentages not increased, given that the outturn achieved in 2008 was much higher? In 54% of cases decisions were taken within two weeks; in 67% of cases they were taken within four weeks and in 84% of cases they were taken within three months. Why were the targets not increased for 2009?

The Taoiseach

This point was raised in substance by Deputy Kenneally also. The profile of cases and the level of complexity can be different. The office has set average targets, what it believes to be realistic in view of the profile of cases it will have to deal with this year compared to last year. There might well have been a class action last year which it was able to defend or prosecute which enabled it to get things done very quickly. Unfortunately, every case is different and the workload from year to year can be different. In one year it might be quite procedural, while in others there might be a high profile of difficult and complex cases. The office sets targets which it believes are consistent with efficiency and effectiveness, taking into account the profile it might have to contend with. I will seek more information from the office for the committee on these points.

Chairman

I thank the Taoiseach and his officials for assisting the committee with the consideration of the Revised Estimates and the annual output statements. We will proceed to Vote 4 — Central Statistics Office which will be dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey. Subheads A1 to A10 are the administrative subheads. Does anybody have any queries on them? Are there any queries on the annual output statements regarding the office's different areas of activity?

Deputy Joan Burton

Has there been any change of policy on holding the census? When is the next census due?

Deputy Pat Carey

The next census is due to take place in 2011. Much of the preparatory work has been done. In fact, the census pilot survey was conducted on 19 April. It covered 10,000 households in a sample of 32 urban and rural areas. The field operation was completed at the end of May and the results are now being analysed by the CSO.

The purpose of the pilot survey was to test the draft questionnaire and the census fieldwork methods being planned for 2011. The questionnaire included changes to 15 of the 29 census questions and three new questions. The new questions being tested relate to same sex civil partnerships, the ability to speak the English language where English or Irish is not the language spoken at home and the person's own perception of their health. The pilot survey also tested some changes to the disability questions to help to obtain information on the number of persons with an autism spectrum disorder. With regard to the field organisation, the pilot survey tested the use of the national address database, the GeoDirectory, to provide an initial list of addresses to be visited by census enumerators. The use of this address database in conjunction with GIS mapping information will also facilitate the production of the full range of small area statistics available from the census.

The results of the pilot survey are being evaluated by the CSO. The findings will be discussed by the census advisory group and the CSO intends to bring proposals to the Government regarding census day 2011 and the content of the questionnaire before the end of the year. After collection in 2011, the census forms will be scanned at the CSO's census processing centre in Swords. A tender for the census IT processing system is under way and the CSO will build on existing technologies successfully implemented for census 2006 in processing the 2011 census.

Chairman

Are there any other questions? If not, I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, and their officials for assisting the select committee in its consideration of the Revised Estimates and the output statement.