Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM (Select Sub-Committee on Finance) debate -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012

Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners (Revised)

We have received apologies from Deputy Pearse Doherty. We are meeting to discuss the Department of Finance group of Revised Estimates. The Dáil ordered the following Revised Estimates for public services to be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance; Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners; and Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners.

I welcome the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan and his officials to the committee. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the supplementary performance information regarding outputs and impacts of the programme expenditure. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. I call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the select committee today and look forward to a constructive discussion covering the 2012 Estimates from my Department's group of Votes. I will begin by making some general comments on the economy, the public finances and our progress under the terms of the EU-IMF programme of support.

Last year GDP grew by 0.7%. This was the first increase in economic growth since 2007. Activity is being driven by exports which are up by 4.1%. This owes much to the competitiveness improvements that have taken place in recent years which is testament to the flexibility of the economy. Importantly, many indigenous sectors are performing relatively well, including tourism and agrifood.

In terms of the domestic side of the economy, consumption declined by 2.7% in 2011 on foot of falling disposable incomes and uncertainty. As would be expected in a period of fiscal austerity, spending by the government sector also contracted and is expected to remain in negative territory for some time to come. The pace of decline in investment moderated. In quarterly terms, fourth quarter 2011 data show that GDP fell by 0.2% relative to the third quarter, a slightly disappointing but not surprising performance given developments in the external environment, particularly the intensification of the euro crisis.

We are starting to see improvements in sectors of the economy that are externally oriented such as tourism, manufacturing and ICT. This is in line with the plan for economic recovery that we have set out. The exporting sector is leading the way and this will feed into investment and, in time, the domestic economy.

This year's budget is based on real GDP growth of 1.3% in 2012, a forecast that is in line with the consensus at the time. However, the indications since are that growth will be a little weaker and most analysts have been revising downwards their forecasts in the past few months. My Department will publish revised forecasts at the end of this month, as all member states will do as part of the European semester.

The external environment is expected to strengthen from 2013 onwards. This should feed through to the domestic economy, with lower levels of savings and higher levels of consumption.

Having recorded a small surplus in 2010, the first in a decade, and again in 2011, the current account of the balance of payments is expected to improve further over the forecast horizon. This is encouraging and means the nation as a whole is paying its way. There is, of course, much uncertainty and considerable risk. Obviously, weakness of the euro area is a concern, especially in the past two weeks. The ongoing elections across the European Union and the continued pressure within the eurozone make it very difficult to forecast economic growth with certainty. The Department will continue to monitor the economic situation in the coming weeks.

I would like to turn to the public finances as this is central to our return to economic well-being and exiting the EU-IMF programme. Since the sharp downturn in economic growth that started in 2007, Ireland has been running very large public finance deficits which have driven up significantly the country's debt. That is the backdrop that frames our economic and budgetary policy. We cannot consistently spend more than we take in in revenue each year. It is unsustainable. Through the Government's determination to correct the public finances, enhance economic growth prospects and create jobs, we are beginning to see positive results. The end-March 2012 Exchequer returns data were generally positive, showing taxes ahead of profile in the first quarter.

As I have mentioned, the latest economic data show that domestic activity, especially household spending, remains weak. The jobs initiative contained a number of measures to support the domestic economy, focusing on employment intensive areas such as the tourism sector. The VAT reduction included in the jobs initiative was targeted towards the tourism sector through the introduction of a 9% VAT rate for its goods and services. The positive effects of the initiative can be seen in the 10,000 increase in the numbers working in the tourism sector since the Government took office.

The Government has built on the jobs initiative with the action plan for jobs and pathways to work. These initiatives include targeted measures to reduce the numbers moving into long-term unemployment. The Government knows that we must prevent long-term unemployment becoming the severe structural problem it became in the 1980s and early 1990s. Initiatives such as these show how structural economic problems can be solved without recourse to increased taxation or reduced expenditure.

Very significant adjustments have been implemented and they have not been easy. As Deputies will know, budget 2012 implemented a budgetary adjustment package designed to reduce further the deficit in the public finances in line with our commitments. One of the key objectives of the Government is to get people back to work. The focus of budget 2012 revenue raising measures was on indirect taxes such as VAT, rather than income tax. Indirect taxes have a less adverse impact on economic activity and employment. The key point is that the public finances are moving in the right direction. An underlying general Government deficit of just under 11% of GDP was recorded in 2010, whereas the equivalent figure for 2011 is 9.4% of GDP. This is evidence of the progress being made. Crucially, the underlying deficit in 2011 was well within the limits set as part of the EU-IMF programme and we saw some favourable comment from market participants when this information was published by EUROSTAT earlier this week. All six of the end-quarter Exchequer primary balance targets set so far as part of the EU-IMF programme have also been met, as have the central Government net debt targets, including most recently for the end of the first quarter of 2012. We have achieved these targets, despite weaker international economic conditions than had been previously forecast.

The stability treaty and the fiscal compact are key to supporting Ireland's recovery. Ahead of the referendum on the treaty next month, I want to make it clear that this is a treaty on stability which is about ensuring a stable euro, recovery and a decent increase in growth and jobs. It is about confidence abroad and maintaining and enhancing the influence we have been rebuilding with investors, job creators and our European partners. For job creating investors, from whom so many announcements have come in recent months, their decisions have been thanks to our renewed political and economic stability and, above all, the determination of the people, despite great sacrifices, to restore Ireland's economic health.

The treaty is also about good housekeeping, managing our debt in such a way that over time taxpayers' money will go not into servicing debts but more and more into public services and targeted growth initiatives to create jobs. It is about having an insurance policy, making sure we have access to the money that allows us to fund these public services and all Government spending. We are on target with our programme and sentiment is good, yet we cannot control world events or the world economy. Markets need to know there is a backup in the form of the European Stability Mechanism. Just having this backup will improve our ability to regain access to financial markets at the end of our programme. Ratification will allow us access.

The Government is taking every step to support economic recovery and will continue to focus on creating the right conditions to get people back to work. Returning the banking sector to health has been a particular priority for the Government in the last year. We must have a financial system that supports a return to sustainable growth in the economy. Last year the Government set out its vision for a new core banking system aligned for lending to the economy, businesses and households. In order to help to achieve this goal, a new division was established in the Department to focus on the banking sector. A number of developments driven by my Department in the last year have helped to move us towards this goal. Following the PCAR exercise, the banks have been recapitalised. The State's investment was limited to €16.5 billion, due in large part to the sale of part of our stake in Bank of Ireland, as well as liability management exercises across the covered banks. This is a significantly smaller investment than the initial estimates of €35 billion when we entered the IMF-EU programme of support.

I suspect Deputies will refer to the consultancy costs provided for in the Department's Vote, but I want to make the point that although these costs are in the millions, they have assisted in generating a capital gain of €7 billion in 2011 alone. This has meant a very significant saving to the taxpayer.

Following a number of mergers, Ireland now has two universal Government supported pillar banks, Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks/EBS, as well as Permanent TSB and other non-domestic banks.

Anglo Irish Bank and INBS have been merged to create the IBRC, which is being wound down over time. The banks have embarked on an ambitious deleveraging programme. They exceeded the target of approximately €37 billion in 2011 with deleveraging of approximately €46 billion across the covered banks, despite the challenging economic environment.

We are beginning to see some stability return to the banking sector as a result of these actions. The deposit outflows seen in the period prior to the PCAR and subsequent recapitalisation have been reversed and there has been significant stabilisation and, indeed, growth in deposit numbers.

The level of Central Bank funding for the covered banks has fallen from a high of €157 billion in February to €109 billion at the end of the 2011, and these banks' share of total ECB funding has fallen below September 2010 levels. Government guarantees have also fallen to below €100 billion from a high of almost €375 billion.

We aim to establish sustainable banks that can survive and prosper, without the need for ongoing State support. Weaning the banks off State support will take time of course and will require improved profitability and market access. We are continuing to focus on maximising the value of the State's investment in the banks. We are engaging with our external partners to develop a proposal which facilitates further restructuring in the banking sector, including the promissory note. Discussions on this proposal have been underway at a technical level.

Looking to the future, we are focussed on developing and implementing solutions to the mortgage arrears problems in the economy. My Department is working to ensure that a comprehensive solution is implemented to address this difficult area. Work is ongoing to prepare the personal insolvency Bill for formal publication and the enactment of this Bill is a key legislative priority for the Government. Work is also under way on other initiatives such as mortgage to rent, as well as the Central Bank's oversight of the banks' own strategies to deal with those in arrears.

In addition, access to credit for viable businesses and individuals is a vital part of the banking system's role in supporting economic growth. The pillar banks have been set ambitious targets for sanctioning of lending into the economy. The 2011 target of €3 billion for each bank was achieved. The target for 2012 is €3.5 billion and the banks are being closely monitored to ensure that they meet these targets. The Department is also working closely with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to assist in the implementation of a loan guarantee fund - that Bill was published two weeks ago - and a microfinance fund. The heads of the latter Bill have been agreed and the Bill will be published this quarter.

The overall focus of all of these policy streams is to ensure that the banking sector is fit for purpose for the economy. The actions taken in 2011, and so far in 2012, have made significant progress towards this goal but I and my Department remain committed to completing this task.

Turning to the business of the select sub-committee today, I am presenting Estimates for my own Department, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Office of the Appeals Commissioner, and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Vote 7 provides for the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department of Finance. The format of the Estimate follows the performance budgeting model which was introduced in 2011, albeit that the functions of my Department have been realigned under four programmes in 2012, which gives an increased focus to banking sector policy.

The gross Estimate for Vote 7 amounts to some €33 million, which represents an increase of some €9 million on the 2011 outturn. The net estimate is €32 million, which is an increase of €9.5 million on the 2011 outturn.

The gross increase is accounted for by: an increase in the paybill of €3 million arising from the requirement to upskill the Department in the economic and banking areas; a projected increase in banking-related consultancy costs, which amounts to €4 million; and a provision of €2 million in respect of costs associated with our hosting of the EU Presidency.

The provision for EU Presidency costs is obviously a temporary increase for the duration of the Presidency and these costs will cease from mid-2013. The remainder of the increase is a regrettable but necessary outcome of the ongoing position we face in terms of managing our country's finances and restoring our banking system. A number of external reviews of my Department have commented on the need to upskill staff and supplement skillsets where necessary. The increase in the Estimate for my Department will enable us to address these challenges.

My Department will, however, continue to pursue economies of scale and improved productivity through the expansion of the shared service function to other Departments, agencies and bodies, and through the sharing of consultancy expertise with the National Treasury Management Agency. Consultancy costs will be monitored closely and will be recouped from the relevant financial institutions where possible. However, I am sure the select sub-committee will appreciate that we must utilise expertise where necessary in order to secure a robust banking system and promote an environment of stable sustainable economic growth.

As for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the net Estimate of €311.978 million is down by €5.581 million, or 2%, on the 2011 net outturn, of which 74% is related to pay for an employment control framework ceiling of 5,774 staff. Continued investment in information and communications technology, as well as providing better services for the taxpaying public, has been a major driver of productivity growth in Revenue. It continues assisting the organisation to deliver in these more difficult economic circumstances with fewer resources.

In 2011, the net tax and duty receipts increased by 7.3% to €34.2 billion, reversing three years of falling returns to the Exchequer. The level of outstanding debt stabilised. A high level of timely compliance with payment and filing deadlines was achieved despite difficult economic circumstances. Revenue continued to provide quality services to support and assist all customers in meeting their obligations.

Throughout 2011, Revenue increased organisational flexibility, efficiency and innovation. Revenue continues to extend the range of electronic services available to customers and sees potential for further development in online operations. In addition, Revenue continues to collect taxes as they fall due, managing the risks inherent in the shadow economy and improving the skills and tools used in tackling tax and duty evasion. These are all important in maintaining the highest possible level of trust and confidence of the community in the operations of Revenue.

The primary priority for Revenue in 2012 is to maximise compliance with tax and customs legislation. In an environment of difficulty and challenge for businesses and individuals, Revenue continues in its efforts to advance the achievement of its mission, through the following: making it easier and less costly for its customers to comply by delivering quality services to customers so that they are informed, understand their obligations and pay the right amount of tax and duty; increasing timely compliance for filing returns and making payments, as well as reducing debt; targeting and confronting those who do not comply; and contributing to Ireland's economic recovery by ensuring a strong and effective legislative base for its activities and the implementation of international and national customs and taxation policy, and a network of tax treaties and agreements. These are seen as Revenue's most important contributions to the programme for Government, the EU-ECB-IMF programme and the national objective of economic recovery.

A key challenge for 2012 is containing shadow economy activity in a recession and with reducing resources. The shadow economy has the potential to undermine the legitimate economy, reduce tax and duty receipts, and impact negatively on competitiveness and jobs. Revenue's strategy of matching resources to priorities, further developing their risk analysis tools, combined with a strong focus on cash business, will continue. Revenue will also continue to address smuggling and associated criminal activity, particularly in the areas of oil and tobacco fraud.

I thank members for their attention and I commend the Estimates for the finance group of Votes to the select sub-committee. I will be glad to supply any further information or clarification members may request.

I thank the Minister. Before we go through each of the Votes subhead by subhead, I invite the Opposition spokespersons to make short opening remarks.

I welcome the Minister and his officials and thank the Minister for his opening statement. I look forward to a full engagement on the detail of the Estimates the Minister is bringing forward, but I want to make a few brief remarks at this stage.

We are meeting today, again, against the backdrop of the re-emergence of volatility in Europe, with the collapse of the Dutch Government and with the ongoing French presidential election. There is a great deal of turbulence on the world markets. The crisis we in Europe hoped had subsided has, unfortunately, re-emerged and poses real challenges for the Irish economy.

I noted today the comments by the President of the ECB, Mr. Mario Draghi, on the issue of the promissory note. While he left the door somewhat ajar and stated engagement is ongoing, he made it clear that, from his perspective, the promissory note arrangement would not change. Those are certainly the comments I saw him make and perhaps the Minister might like to make some-----

Deputy McGrath should read his full statement.

I saw what he said on the news, and that is what he said. Those types of remarks are not helpful, especially at a time when we are engaged in a difficult EU treaty referendum.

The main issue that has been and remains to the fore in the Irish economy is that it is a two speed economy. Exports continue to do reasonably well, although the growth levels we have seen in recent years will slow down this year because of the international climate.

I am sure the Minister will be aware, from his constituency and from meeting people all the time, there is carnage in the domestic economy. It is extremely weak. The figures on the domestic side for the fourth quarter of 2011 highlighted clearly the impact of the ongoing austerity which we accept is necessary. The cumulative impact of a fiscal adjustment of approximately €24 billion since 2008 is wreaking havoc on the domestic side. There is a distinct lack of confidence. Those who have money continue to save it, something borne out by Central Bank figures, and consumer sentiment is on the floor. That is the elephant in the room in terms of the economy because whatever level of growth we achieve on the export side will not be sufficient to lift the overall economic base to where we need it to be. If we want to make a real dent in unemployment, we will require growth on the domestic side because that is where the jobs will be. The domestic side contains the labour-intensive sectors, for example, retail, and they are the ones that are suffering the most. It is a real concern.

I note the Department will confirm its forecasts for 2012 when the stability programme update is published at the end of this month, but it seems the domestic economy is likely to contract again in 2012. I hope that is not the case. It is all very fine to highlight modest growth in GDP terms in 2011, which is to be welcomed after successive years of contraction, but the real story with the Irish economy is the flatness of the domestic side. The Government must continue to focus on that and seek to bring forward initiatives such as last year's jobs initiative. That targeted one particular sector, but we need similar initiatives for other sectors if we are to make progress.

On the public finances, the figures are somewhat encouraging. The underlying deficit last year was well ahead of the limit set under the EU-IMF programme, with an underlying deficit of 9.4%. The EUROSTAT returns this week indicate we are likely to achieve quite comfortably the 8.6% target for 2012. It estimated a figure of 8.2% based on the Department's returns. That is also to be welcomed. The Exchequer returns so far this year have been positive, but I would not pop the champagne corks just yet. There is some distance to go on that front.

The real issue, as the Minister stated in opposition, is unemployment. Until we start to make inroads into unemployment, the public finances and the economy will continue to struggle. There has been some welcome modest downward movement on the live register figure, but it is still 437,000 or 438,000, which is unacceptably high. The Government must continue to focus on that area. The jobs action plan is being implemented and there are many good measures in it which we welcome. Clearly, that is where the focus of Government must be.

On the broader issue of our debt sustainability, the IMF made some comments recently at its conference in the United States where Mr. Ajai Chopra referred to Ireland's debt sustainability as being quite fragile, and I agree with him on that. When one looks at the analysis of the Fiscal Advisory Council, if the growth levels slip, and there is a real prospect that such will happen because of the ongoing cuts on the domestic side and the difficulties in the international economy, our debts will not be sustainable. That is why it is so important we get a better deal from the ECB and our international partners on the issue of the promissory note.

On the issue of the banks to which the Minister referred in his opening statement, there are still real ongoing difficulties in the banks. I made the point to the Minister previously that measuring their lending performance by lending approvals is not appropriate. He should be measuring them by the amount of lending extended to the economy because while the banks will say they approved lending of €6 billion to the economy last year, only half of that was circulated and extended. The banks cannot control whether borrowers draw down lending, but it is easy for them to make approvals and attach terms and conditions that are so onerous, the applicant has no prospect of drawing down that loan. The Minister should measure the banks by the amount of money they are lending and which is going into circulation in the economy.

I have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions the issue of salaries in the banks. It is an issue of real public concern that the salary levels are still unacceptably high. There was the disclosure last year of 24 staff in AIB earning a basic salary of €250,000 each. The committee was informed last year that 32 staff in the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, earn a basic salary in excess of €200,000, which means 32 staff in a dead bank that does not do new business earning more than the Taoiseach. By any reasonable measure, I do not see any justification for those salary levels, especially in the case of IBRC. That bank also has teams of consultants and we cannot get information on what they are paid. There is no transparency.

The Minister has been conducting a review of executive pay in the banks for 12 months and he has refused to give any details as to what that review involves, where it is going, when it will be completed and whether it will result in a reduction in salaries. None of the top executives in the Irish banks has taken a pay reduction since the crisis emerged in 2008. When one compares that with the difficulties ordinary people face day to day, it is no surprise there is growing disenchantment, not only with domestic politics but at the wider European level as well.

The Minister has done a certain amount of work on the issue of mortgage arrears, on which he touched. The Keane report has been published. The Minister has assured us that, behind the scenes, the work is ongoing to implement the recommendations of the Keane report but a vacuum has been created by the lack of action. The heads of the personal insolvency Bill, which were published in January, went to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and the committee sent its report to the Department. We expect the Bill to be published quite quickly, but we need to know when that system of non-judicial debt settlement will be up and running because all the experts who have looked at the issue of personal indebtedness and mortgage arrears have stated the problem will not be solved until an independent debt settlement system is up and running. The Government has been slow in taking action in that area. We need to know that system will be up and running so that people will have recourse to it and will see light at the end of the tunnel on that issue.

On the Estimates, while I welcome this meeting, I fail to see the relevance of looking at a budget four months into the year. The Government has brought in some reforms in this area through the performance budgeting model, which are an improvement. As Opposition spokesman on finance, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, highlighted year after year the utter irrelevance of examining a budget when it has already been passed and much of the money is already spent. If Parliament is to have a meaningful role in regard to the setting of budgets, we should be examining these matters before decisions are made and should be given a real input prior to the budget. This would allow the Minister to take on board the views of Members and to frame the budget accordingly, with a complementary follow-up analysis of how the money has been spent taking place later in the year. The current system is archaic and in need of major reform. The Minister has made a start but I urge him to go further in making the Estimates and budgetary process more meaningful and relevant by giving Members, on an all-party basis, a genuine input.

The Minister has not quite painted a rosy picture, but he has certainly sought to present an optimistic view. I accept that it is probably his job to do so. However, that optimism is not borne out by reality either in this country or in the wider European economy. He pointed to the very modest growth of 0.7% last year before acknowledging that the decline in this growth which became evident at the end of last year is likely to continue. All serious projections - not just the prophets of doom - indicate that economic growth in this country and in Europe, on which we are depending, is contracting. That is not a particularly rosy prospect.

The Minister points to the moderation in the decline in investment. That decline could not but moderate in a context in which investment had collapsed by some 70% since 2008. If we had not seen such a moderation, we would truly have been on the road to utter disaster. It is not a basis for much optimism given that we went off the cliff after 2008. The Minister refers to an expected strengthening of the economy from 2013 onward. The same view has been expressed by the Fiscal Advisory Council, whose representatives I intend to interrogate on this point at tomorrow's meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. On what basis are these forecasts being made, given that growth is contracting throughout Europe, with that contraction now spreading even into Germany? The Netherlands cannot bear the possibility of imposing austerity because of the damage it will do to growth. We learned today that the British economy, our largest trading partner, has dipped again.

In these circumstances there seems little basis for the Fiscal Advisory Council or anybody else predicting that growth will strengthen in 2013. On the previous occasion that representatives of the council attended a meeting of the finance committee and I asked them this question, they responded that their projections for growth are based on historical models. I did not get an opportunity to ask what those models might be. Are they referring to precedents from the 1920s and 1930s or to historical models taken from economics textbooks, most of which could be torn up with a reasonable degree of justification given their failure to comprehend the dynamics of what has happened to the economy in recent decades? I do not seek to be a prophet of doom but, given the actual figures, I simply do not find the projections for the short to medium term, with talk of an improvement in 2013, credible. The only caveat the Minister applied to his prediction was an acknowledgement of considerable risk. That is a massive understatement.

The issue of job creation is rightly a key focus for the Government and, in a certain sense, a test of all of this. The reality, however, is that the strategy of imposing austerity and essentially sacrificing the domestic economy in the hope that by ratcheting down costs we will increase competitiveness and export our way out of the mess, has been entirely unsuccessful. The employment figures show that whatever is being gained on the swings is being lost on the roundabouts, with no movement on the net level of unemployment. In fact, the figures are flattered hugely by the fact that tens of thousands of people have left the country in the past two years. Our unemployment figures would be utterly catastrophic were it not for emigration. We have lost more on the roundabouts than we have gained on the swings under this strategy when one includes the numbers forced out of the country as a result of the collapse of the domestic economy as against any gains to which the Government may point in terms of luring foreign direct investment.

The reason it is so important to emphasise this reality, and particularly so at the moment, is the Minister's reference to the so-called stability treaty as being inherently linked to the Government's strategy and the strategy of Europe's leaders to chart the way out of the crisis. Have recent events, including those of this week, not begun to give the Minister and other European leaders pause for thought as to whether the stability approach, as the Minister describes it, is not a way out but is simply, as others are calling it, an austerity strategy that is crippling growth in the European economy? The evidence is piling up in this regard. At what point do we admit that it is suffocating growth throughout Europe? As I said yesterday in the Dáil, if the Dutch, with one of the strongest economies in Europe, cannot stomach the prospect of European dictated austerity being imposed on their economy, how on earth is our traumatised economy expected to endure the level of austerity that is being demanded?

I do not know whether the Minister will be any more forthcoming than the Taoiseach was yesterday on the question of the extent of budget cuts that will be required to meet the targets set out in the treaty. The Minister hopes we will exit from the EU-IMF programme in 2015, at which point the deficit will have been reduced to 3% of GDP. What expenditure cuts will then be required in order to achieve the 0.5% target laid down in the treaty - one estimate suggests it will be €5.6 billion - and, in addition, to meet the debt to GDP targets? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that if our debt is €170 billion and it must be reduced by half, to €90 billion, by way of annual reductions of one twentieth, or 5%, then that amounts to €4.5 billion on top of the reductions that will be necessary to reach the deficit targets every year for 20 years. Given what is happening in the rest of the European economy under the impact of austerity, is that not a recipe for utter disaster?

This brings me to the Estimates for the Department and the justifications the Minister has given for the projected expenditures. What really shocks me-----

We will go through the separate Votes presently.

This is a general point. It is utterly shocking to see the identity of the various consultants to the Department on the banking crisis, namely, Rothschild, Goldman Sachs, Arthur Cox, PricewaterhouseCoopers and McKinsey. The first three names are particularly jaw dropping. Rothschild, for example, one of the major bond trading houses in Europe, has been paid €6 million to advise the Government on how to deal with the banking crisis. Not surprisingly, Rothschild told the Government it should not burn the bondholders. As it is, of course, a bond trader, what else would it tell one? As for Goldman Sachs, why on earth is the Government employing it to provide banking advice when firms like it are at the heart of the crisis that has been imposed on the global, European and Irish economies? I would like to hear some justification for this or at the very least, an acknowledgement there is something of a conflict of interest in this regard?

One point I find interesting is the Minister has justified the increases in expenditure in his Department on the basis that they have made savings. In other words, expenditure has been increased to make savings. Why does the Minister not apply the same logic to the economy? The argument that has come from the other side of the House has been that one must increase investment to achieve growth, generate revenue and deal with the deficit problem. When Opposition Members make such a suggestion, the Minister replies it is rubbish and the country cannot afford it. However, he does not apply the same logic to his own Department for which he justifies increased expenditure. At the same time, he states that public expenditure must be cut and pursues policies to so do. Moreover, those who are being paid in this regard are people over whom there are major questions as to the objectivity of their advice and whether a conflict of interest exists. In addition, there are serious questions as to whether this advice is leading Ireland in the right or wrong direction. I suggest to the Minister the evidence now is piling up daily that their advice is leading Ireland in precisely the wrong direction.

I propose to deal with each of the Votes separately and colleagues will have an opportunity to contribute in respect of any of the subheads. However, I first wish to acknowledge the documentation prepared by the secretariat on this occasion and thank it for so doing. It is in line with the changed programme and approach that has been agreed in the Houses for consideration of the Estimates. Members very helpfully have been supplied by the secretariat with spreadsheets that allow comparative analysis to be carried out between 2011 and 2012, among other things. I acknowledge this is very helpful to members.

We will turn first to Vote 7, Office of the Minister for Finance. Members also should be in possession of the original documentation provided to them before they received the spreadsheets. The pages in the Department's briefing document relevant to the aforementioned Vote are pages 4 to 23, inclusive. I propose to take the administrative subheads (i) to (viii) first. Administrative subhead (i) under Vote 7, Office of the Minister for Finance, pertains to salaries, wages and allowances. Are there any questions or comments?

I note an increase in expenditure of 17% under this subhead from approximately €17.5 million to approximately €20.5 million. The justification given in the briefing notes states it is for upskilling and supplementing of skills through the recruitment of expert staff in the economic and banking areas of the Department. How many additional people now work in the Department? How many people were in the Department in 2008 and 2009 and how many work there at present? Is the Minister satisfied he now has access to the requisite expertise? He should provide Members with further information on the aforementioned increase in salaries of €3 million in the Department.

Members will recall that in recent years, there has been constant criticism of the Department of Finance. Phrases such as "not fit for purpose" were used quite frequently and the criticisms of the competence of the Department of Finance were reflected in the Nyberg, Wright and Honohan reports. Consequently, I wish to ensure that I meet such criticisms by having a Department that is fit for purpose and this will cost money. These are the Estimates for 2012 and I note the Department's recruitment for 2012, which is just commencing, will include some key areas. One major area pertains to bringing to the Department at Merrion Street the personnel from the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, who had banking expertise and consequently, the Department now has a significant in-house banking unit. A large portion of their salaries has been transferred to this Department of Finance Vote. Second, Mr. Jim O'Leary, who was an economist attached to the Department of Finance and who operated as a kind of sole practitioner reporting to the Secretary General, retired for personal reasons before Christmas. While I intend to replace him, I also wish to build an economic policy unit with a forecasting function around that area of the Department and I need resources to so do.

This is a Department in which people work extremely hard. As members are aware, no one above higher executive officer level gets overtime in the public service. I have people who work on Saturdays, Sundays and late into the night and it must be acknowledged there are very good, highly qualified, highly intelligent civil servants with great expertise who are committed to the country and who give of themselves freely in that commitment. However, I must supplement their skills by recruiting new people. In light of the criticism that was made and in light of outside assessments of the lack of expertise made in the aforementioned reports, I am totally and fully justified in seeking the resources from my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, to engage in significant recruitment across the Department in order to have a Department that is fit for purpose. While I do not wish to go back over the past, the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government gave us the biggest catastrophe since the Famine. I assure anyone who thinks we can get out of this easily with the same resources and going at things in the same old way, it is not possible. The Department of Finance has a serious function in carrying the load of remediating the crisis. It is managing a lot of the crisis and is working its way out of it and I need the assistance and help of experienced civil servants to so do.

On the actual staff numbers, the figures I have to hand are 607, 563, 564 and 654 for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. There is an adjustment thereafter and the numbers will increase further in 2012. However, the raw numbers do not tell the full picture. If one considers the division of labour between the two Departments that are housed in the original Department of Finance, my Department has responsibility for the banking crisis. This needs a lot of expertise and with the people who came over from the NTMA, the in-house experience has increased dramatically. However, such expertise must be supplemented with consultancy services. Were we to staff it with career civil servants, when the crisis is over and has been dealt with in a couple of years, we would have much expertise that is surplus to need. Instead, one brings in consultants to address particular projects.

For people on the left of politics such as Deputy Boyd Barrett, the names of certain consultants in the financial area are repeated with all the emphasis of swear words one would not allow small children to use. However, who does the Deputy suggest we bring in to deal with saving €5 billion on burning junior bondholders? As the Killiney wren boys will not do this for the Government, one must get people who have the expertise and must pay them the rate. While the Department certainly is paying millions to them, the figure saved on foot of the liability exercises they conducted was €5 billion. Moreover, this nails the fallacy that bondholders did not suffer. Approximately €15 billion was taken from subordinate bondholders, some by the previous Government and some by the present Administration since it came to office. I acknowledge that other bondholders have not been touched and are being paid in full but subordinate bondholders have been discounted across the Irish banks to the tune of €15 billion. We would not be able to do that if we did not bring in outside consultants with the relevant expertise. That is the position. As set out in what is before the select sub-committee, we now have room to hire a significant number of staff.

I agree with one aspect of what Deputy Michael McGrath said. A great deal of the shorthand being used in respect of the general analysis of the economy is incorrect. It is not true to say the domestic economy is completely flat. One of the areas of the economy that is thriving is agriculture, both inside and outside the farm gate. Agriculture is part of the domestic economy. A sector which grew by 8% last year and is growing very strongly again this year is tourism which is also part of the domestic economy.

It is not true to say there is a division of the economy. We are taking it sector by sector. Deputy Michael McGrath has referred to the initiative I took to stimulate the tourism industry. If he considers what has been happening in the property market in Dublin in the past couple of weeks, on both the commercial and residential sides, it can be directly attributed to the measures included in the budget and the Finance Act. Today's newspapers attribute the successful and enormous sale of commercial property in recent days to the capital gains window we introduced in the Finance Act. If one purchases commercial property in 2012 or 2013 and holds it for seven years, one will not pay capital gains tax when one disposes of it. This is beginning to put a floor in place in the commercial property market. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett will certainly be aware that reasonably good three and four-bedroom family homes in Dublin located in good areas are the subject of competitive bidding. If a good family home in the area from the Deputy's constituency to this part of the city and back out to Greystones comes on the market, 20 or 30 couples might visit it on the day on which it comes up for viewing. There is beginning to be movement in the property market.

I accept that there have only been very tender shoots of growth to date. However, it is necessary to take the economy on a sector by sector basis. The major blow to the domestic economy stemmed from the fact that activity in the construction sector had completely collapsed. That sector was responsible for over 20% of the economy and this totally disappeared, with 100,000 people being made redundant. Their spending power and all of the investment in the sector were suddenly removed from the economy. In the first three months of the year that end of the economy stabilised at a very low level. First, one stabilises and then one slowly builds up. One does this through the provision of supply side initiatives and by means of the other measures we have been discussing. Many such initiatives were included in the Finance Act.

I would love to have the wherewithal to introduce a stimulus package to the economy. One would not need an awful lot to achieve this. If I had €10 billion to spend over five years, I could proceed with such a package. I could, for example, add €2 billion each year to the public capital programme, spending on which is running at approximately €4 billion a year. That would do a great deal for the domestic economy. I have views and ideas on this and I am prepared to negotiate on it. First, however, we fix the basics such as the banks and consider the areas that are strong. Then, as is the case, we move on to the areas that are weak. We have done a great deal on the supply side, but I fully agree with Deputy Michael McGrath to the effect that there are two sides to the economy, namely, the supply and demand sides. If I can continue my work on the supply side and move to deal with the demand side in the course of this year and the budget for 2013, I will do so. The only thing that is stopping the Government from proceeding in this regard is the fact that we are going to collect approximately €36 billion in tax this year, but we will spend in the region of €50 billion. When one borrows from abroad to spend in the domestic economy and one's spend is €14 billion greater than what one is collecting in tax, one is stimulating the economy. Relative to what was being done five or six years ago, however, this is meagre.

The difficulty is that we must make the tax take match expenditure. We must then put in place an investment programme in parallel with this. We are making progress. I am not overselling it and my presentation of events has been very modest. I just want the Deputy to know that we are following a particular line of policy. If one considers the sectors rather than the economy as a whole, one will more easily be able to see what we are doing. Underpinning everything is the fiscal correction we are obliged to make and the need to ensure there is a banking system that will provide the necessary credit flow to the economy. That is a work in progress also. I am not stating the banks are fixed, but they are a hell of a lot better off than they were at this time last year. We will continue to improve them.

The Minister indicated that 654 people were employed in the Department in 2011. What is the anticipated figure for 2012? He has indicated that there will be some further recruitment this year. The number for 2011 had changed from a base of 607 in 2008. However, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform did not exist at the time. In order that we might place the matter in context, will the Minister indicate the number employed in the latter Department? We can then add the two figures together to arrive at a true comparison between staff numbers now and in 2008.

The issue of qualifications has been the subject of much comment. Experience is just as valuable as a qualification. Will the Minister indicate the number of qualified economists and accountants and individuals who possess other forms of professional expertise who are now at his disposal within the Department of Finance?

As the Deputy is aware, the Department of Finance was divided in two. In terms of numbers, there are two Departments involved and the comparisons are inexact. There are 320 staff in my Department and we are going to take on a further 49 this year.

In the context of accountancy, business and other qualifications, there are seven staff who are certified in economics, five of whom hold diplomas, 36 have primary degrees, 25 have masters degrees, while one has a PhD. This means some 74 staff in the Department have qualifications in the area of economics. In the area of accountancy seven hold certificates, nine have diplomas, three have primary degrees, four are professional accountants and one is in possession of what is described as a miscellaneous qualification. As a result, some 24 members of staff possess qualifications in accountancy. There are also staff who possess qualifications in law. Out of 320 staff in the Department, 252 are in possession of professional qualifications of one kind or another. The criticism is not that there are insufficient numbers of staff employed by the Department who have qualifications in economics but rather that there is not a strong economic unit - led by a professional economist - within it. The latter is the criticism I would make and it is this which I am moving to remediate.

The number of accountants, four, seems very small. There are very modest businesses which would have finance teams larger than this.

The Deputy will be aware that the tradition in Departments, particularly the Department of Finance, was that staff learned all the numerical skills as they moved up through the system. This underlines the point he made, namely, that experience is almost as important as a qualification. There are many people with the relevant expertise, but I suppose it was not to their advantage to gain professional qualifications because doing so would have made no difference in the context of their work, particularly as they were doing it already. There is no lack of competence on the accountancy side within the Department.

I agree with the Minister on the need to employ people in his Department or the public service in general who will do the best possible job. As indicated, I do not see any problem with investing to obtain results or in employing people who are capable of doing the job. I do not agree with those who bash the public service and state any increase in the number working within it is, by definition, somehow bad. Therefore, I have no difficulty with the Minister's pronouncement on this matter.

My problems lies more with the consultants. I also have a difficulty with the levels of pay at the top end of the public service. Perhaps the Minister might comment on this aspect. I do not see a justification for levels of pay in excess of €100,000 or €150,000. I will not belabour the point because it has been made on many occasions. My opinion on the rates of pay which apply in the private sector is the same. In the private sector, the pay for executives and others at the top end is much higher than in the public service. We could do something about this in the case of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, for example. I do not understand why those banks, which we finance to keep in existence, are allowed to pay excessive salaries while we do not exercise control over them. Again, the evidence just piles up.

They would be far better if they were fully nationalised and taken under the control of the political authorities. Then the same pay rates would apply to them as do in the public service. We would be saving ourselves a lot of money and also have the expertise in-house.

On the Minister's point about the Rothschild Group, Goldman Sachs and the - did he say the Killiney boys?

He said the Killiney wren boys.

To be honest, the Killiney wren boys would have done a better job than the bankers. When one looks at the mess these bankers, who were driven by nothing other than profit and obscenely high salaries, have made of the global economy, a randomly picked man at a bus stop would have given better economic advice and done a better job.

A taxi driver would be better.

Yes, taxi drivers would make far better advisers. We should employ a few taxi drivers in the Department of Finance because they would give better advice.

I am serious about conflict of interest. I do not buy the argument that the Rothschild Group can be giving advice to bond traders across the eurozone and the global economy while telling us how to deal with bondholders.

Does the OECD contribution come in under this Vote?

I do not think so. It covers salaries, wages and allowances in the Department of Finance. I must point out we must deal with the subheads systematically. I can give some flexibility but we need to deal with the subheads.

Fair enough. I have a problem with the consultancy side of this Vote.

It is not correct to say no banker has taken a reduction in wages. Many of them have, right across the IBRC. The policy is to keep downward pressure on bankers' pay. We try to live and abide by the ceilings agreed by Deputy Michael McGrath's Government. For chief executives of banks, the ceiling is €500,000. The latest appointment to AIB before Christmas was only there for several months when he volunteered, without any pressure, a 15% reduction in his salary that had been agreed a few months before when he was appointed.

What one pays people is always a thorny issue. One wants people good at the job to run businesses, not people who are incapable. There is a common labour market between ourselves and the UK, especially in banking. It tends to be very mobile and people command extraordinarily high salaries in the City of London. Very often, those who take up jobs in the Irish banks are taking them up for reasons other than salary. Usually, they are expatriate Irish who would like to live at home when their children reach a certain age and want to rear them in Dublin. Others have their money made and just want to keep on working. They are still very well paid.

I will give the Deputy one example for which he will not thank me. Does he remember the gentleman who ran the Dublin Airport Authority and the big row about his bonus? He was on a salary plus bonus of €250,000. He is now running an airport in London on double that remuneration. How does one hold good people to run Dublin Airport if they can go across to London and double their salary? One has to watch it all the time.

We are maintaining the caps on salary that Deputy Michael McGrath's Government brought in and we are working within them. We are getting very well-qualified people at those rates. There are some jobs at the top level across the public service that, when advertised, can reveal a limited choice. It is not as easy as the Deputy presents it. We are keeping downward pressure. We take the point that when many families feel the pain, it is difficult for them to accept a ginormous salary for a banker compared with what they have to live on. We will keep downward pressures on bank salaries. There is a consequence, however, which I do not want to skim over.

Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about advisers. I recall advice given to me when I was young and got married that one should never borrow for anything other than the roof over one's head. I do not believe Deputy Boyd Barrett would approve of that.

Is there a breakdown in the numbers of those redeployed across Departments compared with those who are new recruits?

The National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, reports to me as Minister rather than to the Department. It had a banking unit at its main headquarters and there was also one in the Department. It did not make sense that those with banking expertise were split between two locations. We brought them all over to the Department of Finance. We are transferring the cost onto the Department's Vote which has not been fully reflected in it yet. This is the significant secondment. The new Secretary General who took up his post after I became Minister came on secondment from the Central Bank. The 49 extra staff I referred to are new recruits.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for all he has done in the past year. Having done much work on the assessment of the banking system, especially the six Irish-owned banks, before I entered politics, I know what a mess was involved. I was shocked and horrified at the lack of resources that existed in Departments and the quality of advisers. Having said that, I would encourage the Minister to do further robust assessments as well as further sandblasting and powerhosing of the system because it is needed. For instance, there are four professional financial accountants advising the Department. I am one myself. The training to become a professional accountant requires much more extension to appreciate banking, loan ledgers, funding and so on. There are all sorts of new buzzwords that have come into parlance such as capital markets. Capital markets actually created a fog from the real essence of what banking is about. Banking is about maintaining and managing well a delta flow of funds into a bank and a delta of loan-asset creation on the outflows. That basic tenet of banking was lost. Investment and derivative banking is a different area in which the savings of society should not be at risk.

The behaviour of firms like Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America was buccaneering at best and downright wrong in many areas. It is not impressive that they would hold out they helped us to save €15 billion by putting losses onto subordinated bondholders because of their special, rare advice and insights into markets There was nothing great or extraordinary about insisting that subordinated bondholders would not be redeemed in full. Perhaps they should have taken the case further on behalf of this country by saying that losses should have been imposed on senior bondholders. That is when they would have earned their fees. As has been pointed out, perhaps there were conflicts of interest. They were schizophrenic in that they had investments but were offering advice. I will be courageous or truthful enough to say that.

What is needed in the Department and the banks is restructuring and recovery experience as well as financial understanding. It should not just be a case of ticking and totting on the debit and credit sides of balance sheets. There must be a raw understanding of how to balance recoveries in loan portfolios while comprehending the underlying maintainable incomes that can be earned from the types of properties which are the subject of securities for those loans. The market should be cleared. Certus has a staff of approximately 350 people, most of whom would be former colleagues of mine from ICC Bank who were muzzled and constrained by the mad practices of Bank of Scotland Ireland. At the core they have some of the good skills of banking which are re-emerging in recoveries and restructuring being carried out by Certus. They are subcontracting work for the other banks. It is a matter of getting on with the job and not being paralysed. The Department of Finance needs people with portfolio experience on both sides, taking in creation, collection, recoveries and restructuring of loans. It is a very different animal from people in capital markets and other areas.

I would question the prudential capital assessment review, PCAR, carried out at the end of March last year which came about before the formation of our new Government. It was a work in progress, with Boston Consulting, Barclays and BlackRock taking part. They ran economic models but I do not know if they had the portfolio experience to make good judgment calls on what is collectible. Those questions are arising again because mortgage loan books have probably raised more questions than answers at this point. If banks are well assessed as to their capital requirements and have good management, there would be no problem in getting deposits back to them as people would feel those deposits would be safe and the operations of the management and staff of the bank would find bankable opportunities to create new assets. There would not be a problem. Bank of Ireland yesterday reported that its up-to-date loans to deposit ratios are still at approximately 140%, which is way over 120%. The target for any high street bank is approximately 90%.

The Deputy should stick to the subheads.

This is an opportunity for discussion.

I know that and I have allowed some considerable flexibility in the past few minutes. We must start making progress.

That is a result of the Chairman's generous nature, which is appreciated.

That is correct. It is not without limit.

I have pointed out that in December, Thomson Reuters, the financial publishers, published an important article-----

The Deputy is not doing what I asked. He should stick to the subhead rather than straying too much into the wider policy and commentary issues. Although they are very important and relevant, they are not precisely relevant to this subhead. We must progress.

The subhead we are dealing with relates to the Department of Finance's journey-----

It deals with salaries, wages and allowances.

In that context, we need to beef up matters big time. We need people with financial accounting experience. We probably have enough economists. Where are the voices and work of people who are contrarian or who were off the establishment view leading up to the change of government? Have we invited any of those people into the Department of Finance or economic think tank units? Those questions must be answered.

My predecessor had the same policy I have put in train of trying to increase the expertise available in the Department of Finance. The quickest way to do this is by secondment. I will describe what has happened. Before becoming Secretary General, Mr. John Moran came in as head of banking on secondment from the Central Bank in March 2011. There is a banking accountant on secondment from KPMG on a pro bono basis, a banking expert on secondment from PricewaterhouseCoopers and there are three economists on secondment from the Central Bank, the Revenue Commissioners and Teagasc. There is a principal officer with expertise in economics on secondment from the Courts Service and a senior legal adviser on secondment from the Office of the Attorney General. There is a counsellor and first secretary on secondment from the Department of Foreign Affairs since September 2011. There are 13 staff, to whom I referred, on secondment from the banking unit of the NTMA and one banking and financial expert who was engaged in January 2012 for six months to work on key mortgage arrears projects.

There is one specialist in project management on secondment from the Rail Procurement Agency, RPA, since March 2012 and four banking and financial experts on secondment on a pro bono basis from the pillar banks since March 2012. There is an economic analyst on secondment from the National Economic and Social Development Office since March and four banking officers seconded from the Central Bank working in the Department’s credit and financial services units. There is one director level seconded from Deloitte working on policy analysis on a pro bono basis since April 2012 and a senior economic adviser from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. That was Mr. Jim O’Leary, who resigned in 2011. There is a statistician on secondment from the Central Statistics Office on a three year placement until February 2014. There is a solicitor from McCann Fitzgerald working on a pro bono basis in the banking division from December 2011. There has also been some direct recruitment.

The Deputy can see how we have geared up with much assistance from the private sector. Some of these people are not even charging for the work, as everybody knows there is a crisis. These people have come in on a pro bono basis for a period. We identified others across the public service, with a good share coming from the Central Bank, as well as other sources of expertise. Effectively, we have head hunted people. Sometimes I knew of people and other times senior staff have known of certain personnel. In the past 12 months we have geared up the expertise and we will continue to supplement that with recruitment of career civil servants with the required skills.

We must proceed to the next subhead of travel and subsistence. If there are no comments or questions on travel and subsistence, we will proceed to the subhead dealing with miscellaneous and incidental expenses, including training. The following subheads deal with postage and telecommunications costs, office equipment and external information technology service, office premises costs, consultancy and other services.

With regard to training and consultancy-----

We are speaking to consultancy and other services.

The two are linked. The quality of the work done by the Department will depend on what level of training will take place. I am concerned that much of the work done on a pro bono basis by the household headed notepaper firms is sometimes like the thin end of a wedge. That is instead of getting independent and courageous insight. Some of the middle management of those big firms are the people to get into the Department.

Does the Minister wish to respond?

There is no real need. One cannot be suspicious of everybody. When one wants help, people offer help and have the expertise. If they do the job they stay with us for 12 months and, if not, we get somebody else. This is an evolving programme.

I have one question. May we have a list of the consultants?

I can give the Deputy a copy of what I read out. The fastest way to get it is if the Deputy tables a written parliamentary question he will have it next week. That is probably the fastest route for information.

Subhead 8 - EU Presidency costs. Are there any comments or questions on the subhead?

The Irish Presidency is for the first six months of 2013 but we will begin to incur costs in the second half of this year and those costs will run until the middle of next year. There are hardly any work-out costs in the second half of 2013.

I thank the Minister.

What is the current estimate of the total cost of the Presidency across all Departments?

The lead Department is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I do not have the total cost. I suggest the Deputy tables a parliamentary question to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Thank you very much. We turn to the programmes, programme A - budget and economic policy, subhead A1, administration, pay. Are there any comments or questions?

Perhaps the Chairman would allow me the latitude to raise a general question under this heading.

There was a report in the Sunday Independent last Sunday about advice or briefing notes from an official in his Department who was, effectively, suppressed. No doubt, that may form part of a banking inquiry if such an inquiry is undertaken by the Committee of Public Accounts. Is the Minister reviewing correspondence and briefing notes and possible suppression of advice from officials around the time in question that was the subject of that article?

I will read my Department's note and then I will say a few words and give my view.

The issue was extensively reported in the media in the past years, most recently in the Sunday Independent last week. More importantly, a number of independent external reviews have been conducted specifically relating to this time period and the advice given on the issue. Parliamentary question replies are in their respective Minister’s name and thus reflect the Government’s policy position, not the views of individual officials. The documents that appeared in the media on Sunday relate, in the main, to internal e-mail correspondence between officials in the Department of Finance during the period 2005 to 2007, regarding advice on the property market. This issue has been extensively reported on in the media in the past years, most recently prior to the Sunday Independent article in The Irish Times in October 2011. A number of independent external reviews have also commented. The documents concerned were considered by both Wright and Nyberg and were taken into account in finalising their conclusions. The recommendations of these external reviews which have been accepted by the Department are in the process of being implemented.

The Government has sought to ensure that the Department of Finance properly assesses risks and clearly communicates them to Government in order that they can be properly considered. In this vein the Department of Finance statement of strategy which will be published shortly - it was cleared with Government yesterday - sets out as a key objective the enhancement of risk capabilities and a greater imbedding of a risk management and control culture through all areas of activity in the Department.

When I returned after Easter I had 230 plus parliamentary questions. The system I use is that I read them all. If one has 232, one does not amend many of them and obviously prioritises those nominated for priority and those likely to come up for oral answers. One also checks the other questions. Sometimes Ministers are away or have other work and have to subcontract the replies to senior civil servants who do the checking. If the Minister subcontracts reading the text to somebody else, it is the Minister's reply, not the Department's reply, and it goes out as the considered view of the Minister. As a consequence the Minister has to take ministerial and personal responsibility for the content. Obviously there will be varying views within a Department from time to time but the Minister has to make up his mind on what is the view that accurately reflects the position and what is in accordance with Government policy. Mr. Brian Cowen answered the questions at issue as he was Minister for Finance during that period.

Nyberg's report is studded with references to one of the problems in the system being the lack of acknowledgement of minority contrarian views within the system. It was pointed out as one of the flaws in Irish public administration which led to the banking crisis.

As Mr. Patrick Honohan said.

Yes, but more explicitly in Nyberg.

In fact, Mr. Honohan said that somebody would have to be courageous. "Courageous", was the word he used.

Will the Deputy please allow the Minister to finish?

The argument being put and the recommendation being made was that there would have to be room for a variety of views to inform the Minister, the Government and the public of what was the position. That is what happened at the time. I am not criticising anybody. The lady in question is very courageous in her views and I think everybody has read the article. That does not mean that anybody else within the Civil Service in the Department was culpable. It was the Minister's responsibility to answer the question and take responsibility for the answer that was given. Things have to change. The whole area of whistleblowing legislation will have to be examined. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, will shortly bring forward such legislation. In the Committee Stage amendments I have authorised for the Central Bank legislation, put through in October, there is provision for whistleblowing in the banking sector and the protection of people who have information on it. That is the position as I know it and understand it.

The key issue in the case highlighted was that the views or the advice of the official were not allowed to be put before the Minister, that it was filtered or screened as such and was, effectively, suppressed. The question is whether that was an isolated case. Obviously the Minister is the person who ultimately puts his name to the reply or to any statement. I am concerned that advice which was available was not put before the relevant Minister which could have had an impact on policy decisions. Ultimately the Government has to accept responsibility for decisions made. I accept that in any Department there is a hierarchy, a chain of authority, and that any given official does not necessarily get to put his or her views before the Minister. Having read the article concerned, there was a clear suppression of the views expressed. My question is whether that was an isolated case. The Minister has, I am sure, reviewed a good deal of documentation and correspondence in the past year, dating back over that period. Does the Minister think this was part of a pattern or was it just a one off?

Wright, Honohan and Nyberg had access to all the documentation. I understand that Nyberg, in particular, would have seen the file of e-mails in question. He has commented extensively to the effect that this was a flaw in the system. If one is putting forward a case that the Minister was not aware of contrarian views - a number of us expressed them quite openly to him across the floor of the House and he was very dismissive of our views. Immediately after the 2007 election, he was putting through an amending Bill on stamp duty, which was an issue during the election campaign. I had got the monthly CSO statistics for housing starts from January to May and it was as clear as crystal there was a hole of about €5 billion emerging in the public finances, simply by taking the housing starts and transposing them to the following year. The rule of thumb at the time was, I think, €1 billion in stamp duty for every 10,000 houses. There were 50,000 houses falling out of the figures for 2008. It was clear as crystal and beyond contradiction that there would be a shortfall of approximately €5 billion in his projections and I asked him to correct the figures and bring forward a supplementary budget, but I am afraid I got a dusty answer.

This was a culture in the country, not just in the Department and other Government agencies. Suppression of views or professional standards took place in the professions. Senior managers did not want to hear from middle managers who pointed out, for instance, in the case of bank balance sheets, that ratios were moving away from prudential ratios. That is why the Department would benefit greatly from the people offering advice who would come in on secondment, not just from the large firms. The Department should bring in courageous people who would shake it up a bit. That is what is needed.

That is not the full picture either and I do not agree with the Deputy's reference to suppression. The Nyberg report acknowledged, "The Department provided repeated expressions of concern over the construction sector in budget memoranda to the Cabinet and elsewhere". It is not the case that opposing views were not considered. The conclusion of the Nyberg report was that on expressing these views, "The Department did not organise a strategic response to the problem or identify a full range of options to moderate activity in the sector". In other words, the contrarian view was communicated to the Government in the budgetary memoranda, but the Government, as was its entitlement, ignored that minority advice and went with mainstream commentary that the boom would continue.

In the regulator's office and the Central Bank there was suppression of things being pointed out.

We are straying from the Department and the issue we are discussing.

It is what governs Ireland.

I am not defending the position; I am only trying to show the Deputy, in so far as I know it, what the position was and the Nyberg and other reports are the best sources.

We are on budget and economic policy - programme A. Are there comments or questions on the subhead dealing with administration non-pay? There has been a reasonably substantial increase of 260%. What accounts for this?

Do we have a breakdown of subhead A2 in the documentation?

The presentation of costs has changed in 2012. Facilities costs that were previously borne by the shared services programme have been distributed across all programmes to give a fairer representation of the cost of providing each programme. If the costs are reviewed in total across all programmes in the Votes of both Departments, there is an increase of €1.142 million, which includes €495,000 for the EU Presidency. The overall increase, therefore, is €640,000. It is driven primarily by the provision of training, relocation to new office space, additional premises for centralised employee assistance services and additional staffing to augment skills in the Department.

What are the Minister's views on the proposal for a banking inquiry, with which the Committee of Public Accounts is anxious to proceed and which the committee is considering also? Is the Government anxious to proceed with such an inquiry? Has the Minister given much consideration to its scope? Would it only examine the policy response or would it examine the build up of exposures in the system in the first place? I would appreciate it if he would comment on this point.

The DIRT inquiry which was run under the auspices of the Committee of Public Accounts, was successful, but that took place prior to the Abbeylara judgment which has made it impossible to hold an inquiry along the lines of the DIRT inquiry. It would be unconstitutional. There was an attempt to remediate this in the recent referendum that was defeated. The Government's policy, therefore, to empower a committee to carry out inquiries such as this was defeated and it is not possible to hold such an inquiry. I would like to await the submission from the Committee of Public Accounts to see what way it intends to address the issue because my understanding is the only way it could have been addressed was by constitutional amendment, but the referendum was defeated. I understand from the public statements of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts that he will submit a proposal to Government. When that happens, we will consider it.

Is it something the Minister is disposed towards doing?

It will be a decision of the Government rather than one Minister. Is the Deputy a member of the Committee of Public Accounts?

There are no more questions on programme A. I refer to programme B - financial services and taxation policy. Are there questions on it?

Is the reason for the increase in the administration non-pay subhead in the programme the same as for programme A?

With regard to credit unions and the report of the commission, the Minister has budgeted for a figure of €250 million this year and a similar amount next year for the resolution fund. When does he anticipate levying the financial institutions to pay into the fund? Will that happen in the short term?

The next step is that I will introduce legislation to include in law some of the recommendations of the commission. Its report was the unanimous report of those who served on it. The two main credit union bodies were represented on it. I expect to publish the legislation in late June with a view to at least taking Second Stage before the summer, but it will not be fully enacted until the autumn, following which dates and timelines will emerge.

Are there comments and questions on programme C?

With regard to pay, does the increase relate to the transfer of staff from the NTMA to the Department? If so, is there a corresponding reduction in the Estimate for the NTMA?

Yes, there is a reduction in cost, but the full cost of the transfer is not reflected in the Department's account.

There is also a significant increase in the administrative non-pay subhead under the programme for the same reasons as outlined.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett said he would not find out what consultants were paid. It is laid out in the documentation on page 21.

Were all the assignments subject to tender or did some become more expensive after people had been hired as the work grew organically over time in some cases? The figures set out for work done are as follows: Arthur Cox, €7.7 million and Goldman Sachs, €6 million. McKinsey and PwC also did work. Were all of these assignments put out to tender?

My understanding is that they were, a project would be put out to tender and a company appointed and if extra work emerged, the project would roll on. There is a footnote on the Goldman Sachs' contract which is ongoing as the IL&P disposal has not been completed. I do not recall any coming in since I took office, but perhaps we should look at them to ensure everything is transparent. I answered a parliamentary question on this matter some time ago and will send the reply to the Deputy.

That would be appreciated.

On a related point, what is the role of consultants in the covered institutions? They have played a significant role in recent times, particularly in AIB and the IBRC, but there is no transparency in what they do. When questions are tabled, the response is that the information is commercially sensitive. We are talking about the expenditure of very significant sums of public money and the public has a right to have that information on the banks which the State owns. Does the Minister plan to provide the information?

There are legal relationship agreements which set out the respective functions of the Minister and the banks. There are commercial policy matters which are within the legal remit of the boards of the banks. If the information is commercially sensitive and within the remit of the boards of the banks, I do not have it. It is a matter for the boards of the banks to deal with. The Deputy may think that is not entirely satisfactory, but the alternative is worse. If a Minister was to interfere politically in commercial decisions of a bank, one can see what that might lead to in current circumstances, where there are large debtors and people complaining every week that they cannot access credit.

I do not think anybody is suggesting there be ministerial interference in the banks in that context. The question is about access to information, a right to receive it and put it in the public domain.

Much of the information to which the Deputy is referring would be included in the annual reports of the banks.

But not at that level of detail. It is a matter at which the Minister should look.

Fair enough. I am not too sure I will be able to do anything about it, but I will look at the matter.

As no member wishes to comment on or ask questions about the key outputs, context and impact indicators, we will move on to programme D, provision of shared services, administration and pay, as well as administration and non-pay issues. As there are no comments on or questions about the key outputs, context and impact indicators, or on or about appropriations-in-aid, that completes our consideration of Vote 7.

We will now deal with Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The briefing documentation is to be found on pages 24 to 33. The spread sheet contains the comparative information. The administrative subheads are (i) to (viii). Subhead (i) covers salaries, wages and allowances in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; subhead (ii) covers travel and subsistence; subhead (iii) covers miscellaneous incidental expenses, including training; subhead (iv) covers postage and telecommunications costs; subhead (v) covers office equipment and external IT services; subhead (vi) covers office premises costs; subhead (vii) covers consultancy and other services costs-----

Will the Minister tell me the reason for the increase to €350,000?

It covers the costs of external consultants or advisers required to assist in carrying out examinations and audits. External consultants are used in validating value for money audits and other studies where the required expertise is not available inhouse. The estimate for such consultancy costs is €150,000, down from €200,000 in 2011. The remainder of the Estimate figure is to cover any issue that may arise in NAMA that would require external expertise. While NAMA has its own expertise, the Comptroller and Auditor General, as an independent officer, must have access to such expertise as he considers necessary in forming his audit opinion. It is difficult to estimate accurately the amount needed; however, the estimated figure for 2012 has dropped to €200,000 from €500,000 in 2011. The cost of external services will be charged to NAMA and recovered through appropriations-in-aid.

Do members wish to comment on or ask question about legal fees? The increase under that heading seems significant. Is there a particular reason for the increase?

According to my note, the increase in legal fees is 275%. Expenditure under this subhead is associated with the programme, audits and reporting. The relevant output targets are to be found in section 3. The subhead covers the cost of legal advice provided for the office. It is difficult to estimate the exact level of legal advice that will be required in a particular year.

Do members wish to comment on or ask questions about contract audit services?

Does that mean getting outside firms to do ticking?

It covers the cost of contracting out to audit firms.

That seems to be a great deal of money. I remember looking at the EBS report for 2008 and the audit fees for the whole institution in one year amounted to €330,000. The figure in this instance is €440,000. It always baffles me how fees are run up.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is independent. I can report on what he spends, but he is independent in exercising his functions.

On programme A, audit and reporting, do members wish to comment on or ask questions about subhead A1 - administration and pay; non-pay and key outputs, context and impact indicators? Do they wish to ask questions about appropriations-in-aid?

Does this relate to the fees paid by public bodies for audits carried out? There is an 18% reduction from €7.3 million to €5.9 million.

The 2011 audit fees estimate included an amount of €500,000 to match the expenditure sanctioned under the consultancy budget. In the event, only €80,000 was spent on NAMA consultancy services and only this amount was charged to NAMA. The audit fees received in 2011 were in excess of that estimated figure at the beginning of the year by some €1,415,000. This reflects the fact that an exceptionally high number of accounts were certified in 2011; there was a reduction in the number of audits in arrears from 86 to 32 during the year. The audit fees estimate for 2012 includes anticipated receipts representing a normal year's income. A great deal of extra work was done in 2011.

We now proceed to Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The briefing documentation is to be found on pages 34 to 47. I will deal with the administrative subheads first. Do members wish to ask questions on subhead A1 - administration, pay, salaries, wages and allowances in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners?

On the 4% reduction to €282 million, the notes state that the number of employees in the Revenue is estimated to have decreased by about 183. Does that account for the anticipated reduction in the payroll bill? Is it simply a head count issue?

That is correct.

Are there any comments or questions on travel and subsistence? No. Are there any comments or questions on training, development and incidental expenses? No. Are there any comments or questions on postal and telecommunications services? No. Are there any comments or questions on office equipment and external IT services in the Revenue Commissioners?

What does the capital amount relate to? It was about €5.5 million in 2011 and about €5 million in 2012. Is that related to IT?

It relates to PCs, servers and hardware.

For replacement or upgrade.

Subhead (vi) refers to office premises expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (vii) refers to consultancy, value for money and policy reviews. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (viii) refers to motor vehicles and equipment maintenance. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (ix) refers to law charges, fees and rewards. Are there any comments or questions?

What does that relate to? Does it refer to where the Revenue is involved in legal proceedings? The figure is quite substantial, about €16 million this year.

It is involved in legal proceedings. It hires solicitors to recover outstanding taxes at times. External solicitors cost €3.989 million, sheriff fees costs cost €0.277 million, bankruptcy and liquidation cost €3.040 million, Revenue solicitors expenses cost €6.56 million and rewards and miscellaneous legal costs were €0.033 million.

Does it operate a panel system? Is it like the framework agreement in the OPW which uses a panel of solicitors?

It is a fully tendered system. A solicitor stays on the panel for five years.

Subhead X refers to compensation and losses. Are there any comments or questions?

What does that mean?

It provides for compensation payments on foot of a court order or otherwise to individuals, staff or non-staff, who have a legitimate claim against the office due to accidents, etc. It is difficult to estimate the actual requirements under this subhead due to the irregular and long lead-in nature of payments. The year 2011 was a low year and the amount for 2012 is higher as there are a number of possible high legal settlements in the pipeline.

We will move to programme A, audit and reporting. Subhead A1 refers to one administration pay. Are there any comment or questions? No. Are any comments or questions on non pay? No. Are there any comments or questions on key outputs, context and impact indicators? No. Are there any comments or questions on appropriations-in-aid?

I refer to the initiative undertaken by the Revenue at the beginning of this year in respect of pensioners in receipt of the State pension who were not being taxed on their private pension income. I understand the Minister gave a figure of €50 million at budget time.

It was approximately €45 million and €50 million in a full year.

Is there any update on that? Is the Revenue at the back end of that process? Have the tax affairs of most people been sorted out at this stage?

My general impression is that the collection of tax is going reasonably well. Revenue is looking to the future rather than the past. There will be little following up of arrears. Now that persons who should have been within the tax net in respect of those pensions are within it collections are coming in monthly. The first quarter returns on income tax are a bit higher than we expected. We are not quite sure whether more is coming from this source or across the income tax system. The situation will only be clarified as the year goes by. Collecting revenue seems to have been quite successful.

Vote 10 refers to the Office of the Appeals Commissioners and is on pages 48 to 51 in the briefing material.

Subhead A1 refers to administration, pay, salaries, wages and allowances. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (ii) refers to travel and subsistence. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (iii) refers to training, development and incidental expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (iv) refers to postal and telecommunications services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (v) refers to office equipment and external IT services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (vi) refers to office premises expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead (vii) refers to key outputs, context and impact indicators. Are there any comments or questions? No. Are there any comments or questions on appropriations-in-age? No.

That completes the business of the meeting. I thank the Minister and his officials for assisting the committee with its consideration of the revised Estimates and programmes.

I thank the Chairman.

Top
Share