I welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, and his officials. We will deal with Votes 11, 12, 17 to 19, inclusive, 39 and 43. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (Revised)
I am pleased to be in front of the committee today to present the 2022 Estimates for my Department’s group of Votes. I am joined by the Minister of State with responsibility for public procurement and eGovernment, Deputy Ossian Smyth. The group comprises a significant number of Votes including: Vote 11 - Public Expenditure and Reform; Vote 12, Superannuation and Retired Allowances, which covers Civil Service pensions; the Votes for a number of offices under the aegis of my Department, including the Vote 14 - State Laboratory, Vote 17 - Public Appointments Service, Vote 18 - National Shared Services Office, and Vote 19 - the Office of the Ombudsman; Vote 15 - the Secret Service; Vote 39 - the Office of Government Procurement; and Vote 43 - Office of the Government Chief Information Officer The Minister of State is happy to address questions relating to the Office of Government Procurement and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, and I will respond to members' questions regarding the other Votes.
I understand that a detailed briefing has been supplied to the committee by my officials, who were assisted in this task by their colleagues in a number of bodies under the aegis of the Department. Further material is also contained in the Revised Estimates for Public Services 2022, which was prepared by my Department. I also wish to take the opportunity to acknowledge last week's letter from the Chairman in respect of the joint committee’s recent Report on the Processes and Procedures Applying to the Appointment of Senior Executives in the Public Service. I will of course answer any questions members of the committee may wish to put to me on that issue.
Covid-19 has presented unprecedented challenges for us all. I welcome the recent unwinding of Covid-19 measures and the opportunity to return to what is euphemistically referred to as normal life. I would add that while this has been a long and difficult journey, I hope that we can now focus our entire efforts on improving the quality of life and living for our people.
In an overall context, the 2022 total gross allocation for the public expenditure and reform group of Votes, which comprises nine distinct Votes, has increased by 5% on the 2021 allocation. The gross figure for 2022 is in excess of €940 million compared to €895 million in 2021. This is largely driven by a significant increase in the estimate provision for Vote 18 and Vote 43, additional EU funding, targeted and minor increases for the delivery of essential services and additional recruitment, and the meeting of additional salary costs. At this point, I will briefly outline the individual Votes in a little more detail.
Vote 11 relates to my Department, which continues to have a wide range of objectives across two strategic programmes, public expenditure and sectoral policy and public service management and reform, which support the two strategic goals of the Department. These are: to manage public expenditure at sustainable levels in a planned, balanced and evidence-informed manner in support of Ireland’s economic, social and climate goals; and to drive reform and innovation across the civil and public service to improve service delivery to the public and to enhance strategic policymaking and public governance structures.
The principal element of the 10% and €4.6 million increased 2022 provision is in respect of technical assistance across the subheads that manage EU funding. Most of the €3.3 million increase in the EU subheads will be refunded directly to the Exchequer by the European Union into appropriations-in-aid. The most significant changes to the subhead budgets are: the special EU programmes body funding has more than doubled to €4.9 million following an increase in EU funding for the new programme cycle; €1.7 million for technical assistance and the provision of additional auditors to ensure sufficient auditing resources to match the increase in EU programme funding; and €1.4 million to cover the cost of a small number of extra posts, pay increases and an expectation of a reduction of vacancies at the Department.
Turning to the other Votes in the group, the provision for Vote 12, superannuation and retired allowances, accounts for three quarters of the public expenditure and reform group of Votes allocation and an overall 1% increase over the 2021 provision. The estimate I am proposing today for Vote 12 involves a gross provision of €707.6 million and primarily provides for pension and retirement lump sums for civil servants, including prison officers, and pension payments for dependents. I note that this Vote required supplementary funding in 2021 of €34 million, which was offset from appropriations-in-aid and gave rise to a technical supplementary estimate of €1,000. This was sought as a result of a higher number of retirements than expected and was approved by the Dáil last year. Year-to-year variation in expenditure on this Vote is primarily driven by the number of individuals who will opt to retire before reaching their compulsory retirement age and whose years of service, and grade and pay level, are variable and uncertain. The increase in gross expenditure is mitigated by an increase in contributions from the single public service pension scheme.
Other bodies under the aegis of the Department, such as the Public Appointments Service, the National Shared Services Office and the State Laboratory, provide important services to large numbers of clients across the civil and public service. The State Laboratory, Vote 14, is the Government’s principal analytical chemistry laboratory and provides a comprehensive analytical and advisory service to Departments and Government offices. A 3% increase to the State Laboratory’s 2021 Estimate allows the laboratory to continue delivery on their mandate, meet increased pay and recruit additional staff.
The proposed funding provision for the Public Appointments Service - Vote 17 - is reduced by 4% in 2022. This reflects the 57% reduction in capital cost requirements in 2022 given the anticipated mid-year conclusion of the refurbishment of the service's Chapter House office, and a 50% increase in payroll costs with an associated increase on current staffing levels.
Vote 18, the National Shared Services Office, NSSO, is the shared services provider for the Civil Service. The office has played an important role in the reform of public services in recent years, through the delivery of human resources, HR, shared services and payroll shared services to clients across the Civil Service and public service. The National Shared Services Office continues to be in growth and investment mode and will commence its delivery of new services for the whole of government this year. This significant growth is reflected in the additional provision of €11.9 million and a total provision of €73.45 million in 2022, a 19% annual increase in funding. The proposed increased provision in the NSSO's 2022 allocation will facilitate the continued delivery of HR and payroll shared services and enable the office to progress the roll-out of financial management shared services, which is scheduled to go online in the coming months.
The Estimate provision for the Office of the Ombudsman - Vote 19 - and the proposed modest 1% increase will enable its various constituent offices to manage their respective operations; fund the additional costs arising from the pay restoration and increased salary costs; facilitate a continued investment in ICT modernisation; and fund the establishment of the proposed new protected disclosures office. I also welcome the appointment of Mr. Ger Deering to the position of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner and I have no doubt he will build upon the excellent contribution of the previous incumbent, Mr. Peter Tyndall. I wish them both every future success.
The State procures goods and services valued in the region of €8.5 billion annually. The Office of Government Procurement, OGP - Vote 39 - leads our procurement reform programme by providing advice, guidance and systems to promote better public procurement and build capacity and capability across the public service. The proposed 2022 allocation of €19.8 million provides for the cost of staffing as well as the costs associated with recruitment of senior positions, as recommended in the organisation review. The 2022 provision will inter alia support the OGP in delivering value for money, quality goods and services in compliance with national and European law; develop procurement arrangements for the delivery of improved procurement capability in the public service, which will yield financial, performance and risk management benefits to the State; and further develop the overarching policy framework for public procurement in Ireland, including the promotion of social and green environmental considerations.
The State cannot fall behind the productivity gains that 21st century technology is bringing to industry. The Civil Service renewal strategy, Digital First, challenges the Civil Service to deliver 90% of applicable services that are consumed online via accessible, integrated and customer-driven solutions. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, OGCIO - Vote 43 - drives the digital transformation agenda across government while providing and developing pan-public service ICT infrastructure, service delivery models and cross-government applications. The widespread adoption of the full range of build to share services, delivered by a single organisation, will address, in large part, the relatively slow pace of digital transformation in government by freeing up Departments and bodies to focus on transformation initiatives rather than simply keeping the lights on. The OGCIO benefits this year from a very significant 90% increase in its €43.3 million Vote. This funding is bolstered by a €23 million EU allocation over two years in respect of the recovery and resilience programme, with some €18.5 million invested in 2022. It will deliver a network that enables all of our State bodies to reap the benefit of 5G technology.
I draw the Deputies' attention to some changes in the presentation of administrative subheads in 2022, which arise on foot of the new financial management service system being introduced in some Votes. This change will bring consistency of approach and allow for better comparisons between Votes. An implication of this is that in 2022 there is some discontinuity between 2021 and 2022 figures. I am happy to provide further briefing on any points of detail Deputies may wish to raise in this regard.
I am very pleased to present the 2022 Estimates for the Public Expenditure and Reform group, approval of which will allow the individual Votes to continue to operate and meet their responsibilities to deliver essential services. The Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, and I are both happy to respond to any questions that members may put.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus leis an Aire Stáit as teacht os comhair an choiste. I believe committees work better when witnesses are able to attend in person for the over-and-back discussion. While I understand that this is not always possible, now that we are moving towards asking people to work from their offices, it would be better, when possible, to have the witnesses and Ministers in the committee room for the debate. It is unfortunate that is not the case today.
As the Minister is aware, there is a large amount of information in the Votes, so I have a lot of questions I will try to get through. I will first focus on the report and letter sent by the committee to the Minister last week. We now know, as of yesterday, that the salary of the Secretary General of the Department of Health is now €298,000. This is a mind-boggling sum for all those who are struggling to keep their houses warm and the lights on. I want to ask about the €81,000 pay increase. The Minister and I have had many an over-and-back discussion on this matter and he knows my thoughts on it. The Secretary General has indicated he has now accepted this increase. Will the Minister confirm if the acceptance of this increase relates to this year only or if it relates to last year also?
I very much welcome the report published by the committee back in November. I appeared before the committee on another matter shortly after the publication of that report and we had an initial discussion on it then. I have now had an opportunity to consider the report in more detail. It is a very detailed piece of work, with 288 pages and a significant number of recommendations. Having considered the matter carefully, it is my intention, as Minister, to propose the establishment of an independent external review panel tasked with a number of key objectives. One objective will be to make recommendations to strengthen the recruitment process for senior public service posts, including at the top of the Civil Service and a number of key public service posts, and also to make recommendations on the process of determining the terms and conditions of employment associated with such posts I am happy to go into that in more detail and to take the Deputy's questions.
On the specific question raised by Deputy Farrell, the issue of gifting a portion of salary is very much a matter for individuals. I am not privy to the details of individual Ministers or civil servants as to when gifting arrangements were put in place or ended.
We have quite a bit to get through in all of these Votes and I want to get through as many questions as possible. From what the Minister has said, I understand he is not able to clarify whether that increase relates to last year as well as this year. Is that correct?
The question of gifting is a private matter for any individual. As Minister, I sign an annual gifting form. To date, I have signed forms to a value of well over €50,000. It is not for me to talk about-----
We are here to talk specifically about this. The Minister is aware there was public outrage at the time of the €81,000 increase. Is the Minister saying he only discovered that this was no longer being gifted when it appeared in media reports?
Yes, that is correct. This is a provision that is administered under-----
The Secretary General did not notify the Minister directly.
If I can answer the question, I would appreciate it. Under the Taxes Consolidation Act, section 483 deals with the issue of gifting of salary on an annual basis. The application is made to the Minister for Finance and it is applied for any purpose or it can go towards the costs of which any public moneys are provided. In other words, the use of the proceeds is a matter for government. Gifts are accepted by the Minister for Finance.
Arrangements are put in place by the relevant Department with which the person works. The Minister is then notified accordingly. I would not be notified of that and, therefore, I do not know the precise dates when gifting arrangements were put in place or ended. There is information published in aggregate form every year, as I understand it, but the tax affairs of individual employees and Ministers remain a private matter. This gifting arrangement is anchored in taxation legislation. That is the answer to the Deputy's question.
I thank the Minister. I must say that the issue of the €81,000 increase has caused absolute public outcry and outrage. As I have said to the Minister before, the decision to grant that increase was completely out of touch. People are struggling at the moment. It was of interest that over the past two weeks, the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, raised concerns about wage spiralling when the impact of inflation on the rise of the cost of living was put to them. It seems those concerns will impact decisions on whether lower paid workers will see increases in their wages. I recall that the Minister felt that the increase for the Secretary General position was necessary in order to ensure international competition for the job. I note that the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, said last week that he was concerned that increasing wages would impact our competitiveness. It is ironic. It seems to me that the Government is only concerned about wage increases impacting competitiveness and wage spiralling when it comes to low-paid workers rather than those at the higher end - the elites who already have vast sums of money coming into their pockets each month. It is different for the ordinary person who is struggling to put food on the table and keep the lights on. What is the Minister's view on that point?
The salary that was sanctioned in December 2020 was for the post of Secretary General in the Department of Health. As the Deputy knows, there then followed an open competitive process which was administered by the Top-Level Appointments Committee and the Public Appointments Service. There were a significant number of applicants, including a number of international candidates who put themselves forward. I acknowledge that the joint committee, along with a number of members of the Committee of Public Accounts, conducted a significant amount of work over the course of last year and furnished a report in November making a series of recommendations for consideration. I have given some consideration to those at this point. We have a public service pay deal, Building Momentum, in place. It involves, in essence, three 1% increases over a two-year period. That pay deal will end at the end of the current year. As the Deputy knows, for both the increases in October 2021 and October 2022, we built in a proviso that there would be a minimum increase for those who are at the lower end of the pay scales across the public service.
We are aware of that.
For example, somebody earning €20,000, instead of getting a flat 1% increase, which would amount to €200, will get two and a half times that.
We also see that one staff member is going to be earning €298,000. We are aware of that. The point here specifically relates to that €81,000 pay increase. I must say it is concerning that there is no clarity out there as to whether the lack of a waiver of that €81,000 applied last year as well as this year. I am fully aware of the public service stability agreement and the situation around it. The point here is that we have a situation where somebody is earning €298,000. I would be interested to hear if the Minister is concerned there will be further pay claims from other senior and top civil servants. One Minister has said that the €81,000 increase was fundamental and was needed to recruit somebody. Nobody is suggesting the process was not correct. We are talking about the €81,000. We are not suggesting that the person who is in place should not be in place. The point is that we are seeing an €81,000 increase for one particular role. Does the Minister think that as a result of all this, there will be further pay claims from top civil servants who will argue they are just as fundamental as the person in the role of Secretary General of the Department of Health?
To be straight with the Deputy, as I always am, no such claims have been made. Whether we like the position or not, it is the case that the gifting of a portion of a person's salary, which I am happy to do because I think it is the right thing to do, is a matter for each individual. Our public servants and civil servants are entitled to gift a portion of their salary. The question of when exactly it was put in place and when it ended is not information I have or to which I would be entitled. In the first instance, an employee of a Department completes the form, which then goes through the process within that Department and is ultimately conveyed to the Department of Finance. I do not have that information, nor do I intend to seek it from any individual because it is none of my business, quite frankly. My role is to ensure we have a robust system for the recruitment and selection of people to fill key posts in the Civil Service and at senior levels across the public service. I am determined to do that. I am going to set up an independent review panel. I anticipate it will be completely removed from my Department. It will advise on the pay determination process. I note the recommendation that the Deputy and her colleagues made about reinstituting the higher remuneration review body. That is not a step I am taking now but I am going to ask the independent panel to make recommendations on what it thinks is the best course of action to arrive at decisions relating to senior pay in the Civil Service and across the public service.
I think we need to be careful what we wish for, as I said to the Deputy in November when I had an initial exchange with the committee. The higher remuneration review body was stood down in 2009. In 2007, as the Deputy knows, that body made recommendations that Secretaries General would receive pay as high as €318,000, the Taoiseach would be paid €330,000 and Ministers would be paid €280,000. If we, as an Oireachtas, absolve ourselves of responsibility and if I, as Minister, absolve myself of responsibility and completely hand over control of this matter to a third party body, we may not like the outcome. That is something we must also consider. I am not committing today to the establishment of the higher remuneration review body, which is what the Deputy has sought. We need to think this through very carefully. The external panel I am setting up will advise me in the coming months as to what it thinks is the best course of action. I will take that advice on board and make a decision.
I will move on to Vote 11. There is reference to an almost 40% increase in costs related to travel. The increase is from €185,000 to €257,000. We have seen reports in recent times relating to the recommendation of the Garda Commissioner that some Ministers require Garda drivers. Can the Minister confirm if the increase relates in part to that? If it does not, where is this additional spending reflected? I am talking about the increase in costs related to travel from €185,000 to €257,000.
In simple terms, the main reason for that increase is that there was not much travel over the past couple of years and the level of travel will inevitably increase this year as there will be the necessity to attend ministerial meetings and other important international meetings at official level as well as ministerial level. It is important to make that point. Was the Deputy asking if the cost of Garda drivers was included?
Yes. Is that reflected as part of those figures?
It is not. This issue arose after Christmas and a decision was made following a security review that was carried out by the Garda Commissioner. As a result of that, a decision was made that three senior Ministers, including me, would be assigned a Garda driver or close protection officer. The cost of that is not explicitly provided for here. It was a decision that was made subsequent to the budget and subsequent to me bringing forward the Revised Estimates volume in the House.
I thank the Minister. As I have questions on that as well, that is interesting. Have the civilian drivers who were replaced due to reasons of national security, as the Minister said, been redeployed or made redundant? As the new drivers will have replaced civilian drivers, I am interested in that. I am also aware there were a number of complaints about the recruitment process for drivers. The Commission for Public Service Appointments, CPSA, reviewed the recruitment process and deficiencies were identified. Will the Minister confirm that none of the complainants were appointed as drivers at a later date?
I thank the Deputy. Her latter point is very much a matter for An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, in relation to any complaints that were made. I am not privy to the details of those or to the identity of any individuals who were involved. There are established procedures available for all of those issues to be considered and adjudicated upon, so that is not a matter for me directly.
On the civilian drivers who are in essence no longer needed, that is a very difficult and highly personal issue for the people impacted-----
Of course.
-----because in many respects, this was not the change that was envisaged. We are talking about people who have, in many cases, families, mortgages and so on. We are continuing to consider that issue and what options there may be for them. At the moment it is a very small number of individuals, namely, a handful of people who were previously working for three Ministers up to the end of 2021 but whose services are no longer needed. I expect we will come to a decision on that in the next couple of weeks. We are examining whether there are any redeployment options. Obviously, there is normal severance within the normal public service terms as well.
I appreciate it is quite a personal issue for those people but for clarity, can the Minister confirm they are currently still in employment and have not been made redundant yet?
That is correct. At the moment we are talking about five individuals. I am very conscious of the impact of this issue on them because it is such a small number of people. As I said, this is an exceptional circumstance in that this is a change that was not anticipated. Certainly, as a Minister who was directly impacted by the outcome of that security review it is not something I was expecting but it is a decision that was made. We must deal with the fallout from that which is-----
Yes. As I am conscious there are many other speakers, I wish to ask quickly about the new protected disclosures office. Will the Minister confirm how many staff will be working there, if there is an average rate of pay and what qualifications are required for appointment?
In addition, will we be incurring a fine for not meeting the transposition deadline for the whistleblowing directive and how much will it be if we are? We received a €2 million for our failure to enact the EU's fourth anti-money laundering directive. Does the Minister think it could be around that figure or could it exceed it?
I thank the Deputy. We have kept the European Commission informed of the progress of this Bill right the way through. As she knows, we sent the general scheme and heads of Bill to the committee and it conducted pre-legislative scrutiny. That took longer than I would have liked. I think it took about seven months. The transposition deadline for that Bill was in mid-December, so we have missed it but, as I said, we have kept the Commission informed all the way through. As things stand Ireland is one of a relatively small number of countries that have an established protected disclosures regime. We will be adding to, strengthening and improving that through the new Bill. The new Bill has now been approved by Government. It will be published in the coming days and I look forward to engaging with the Deputy, her colleagues and all Oireachtas Members in detail on the progression of that Bill. I have carefully studied the recommendations from the committee. Some of them we have directly taken on board and others we will consider on Committee Stage. There may be some we cannot accommodate but that is an issue for the Oireachtas in the course of the progression of the Bill. That includes her questions on the number of staff, the budget and so on. Those are detailed operational issues we will come to in the course of considering the Bill. I hope Second Stage of that Bill can start within the next couple of weeks or so. I look forward to it.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.
On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned our 288-page report. Will he be responding formally to the content of it? He gave us some good news on one of the recommendations. Will he be coming forward to deal with all the recommendations and give us a clear response to the report?
I thank the Chairman. I am happy to do that and respond in writing to the report. While we are still considering some aspects of it I have come to a view as to what needs to be done in respect of the main recommendations. I am happy to commit to writing to the committee with my response, including a response to each of the recommendations made. What I am confirming today is a significant move. It is the setting up of an independent panel outside the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We will provide secretarial and technical assistance to support the work of the individuals who will be on that panel. I need to get the balance of the composition of that panel right in relation to private sector background, as well as public sector background.
I want the panel to do its work as quickly as possible. Quite substantive issues must be considered here, namely, the selection and recruitment of people to fill the most senior roles in our Civil Service and public service. I have already given a commitment to a review of the Top-Level Appointments Committee, TLAC. That will now be folded into this review. This will be part of that work as well. It will look at the composition of TLAC. I am aware the committee made a recommendation that there be a majority of people from a public service background on TLAC. I take a different view. Currently, TLAC has a majority of people from outside the civil and public service, which is a better overall balance, especially when we are trying to attract more people from the private sector into the civil and public service. There is also the issue of pay determination. As I said, I am not accepting at this point the committee's recommendation to set up a higher remuneration review body because having looked over the history of this matter, there are issues that would need to be carefully thought through. I will ask the independent panel to come back to me with a view on that. I will then make a recommendation to Government on that issue.
Again, for clarification, my view on the TLAC composition was it should have a majority from the private sector, so I share the Minister's view. Is he saying TLAC and the Public Appointments Service, PAS, will be part of the work of that independent group to look at how these bodies function?
Both of them?
As TLAC's role is, as the Chairman knows, in filling vacancies at assistant secretary general and Secretary General level in Government Departments, so it certainly will be part of this review. It will be the subject of this review with respect to its composition, role and the processes there. On the PAS, it provides a service across the public service and if certain bodies are seeking to fill a position, such as head of the HSE or another public body, the PAS would very often be involved in that process. The whole recruitment and selection process for senior positions in the civil and public service will be involved in this review. Thus, it will involve TLAC at a central level and PAS at a certain level because it has a much wider remit in supporting the filling of vacancies at all levels across the public service. I am not suggesting we review all aspects of the PAS's work because it does very good work but-----
Okay.
-----when it comes to the role of filling those top-level positions in the public service, that is going to be the subject of this review. There is also the critical issue of pay that I touched on there. I will consider the committee's recommendation on the review body but I do not want to go straight to that because there are issues we must weigh up.
As a final point, I wish to put something on record. I have done so numerous times but do so again as Deputy Mairéad Farrell has raised it.
The decision to increase the salary of a particular individual or position by €81,000 was a disgraceful decision taken quietly in some back room in Government Buildings. There was the addition of €3,000 and then the increase yesterday bringing it to €298,000. I disagree with the Minister in respect of the gifting. He stated it is a personal matter. Actually, this particular position is so outside the norm in terms of salary that it should be ring-fenced and treated separately. If a person got an increase of €81,000 in 2021-22, I cannot see the logic of him getting two further increases in 2022. Surely because the person got an increase of €81,000, any other increases that were agreed for those at that level within the Civil Service who are paid less should be withheld from that position because of the special arrangements that were made. As I stated, there was no memo of the Cabinet. I do not know from where it originated because, in spite of the 288-page report, the Minister was probably the most forthcoming of all Ministers in terms of the explanation. The Taoiseach, however, was not. Mr. Watt was not. He sent us a copy of the press release. His behaviour since then has been utterly disgraceful.
I question the level of payment he is now receiving. I believe it should be ring-fenced and the two increases we are discussing should not be added on to that increase of €81,000. The Minister stated the gifting is a personal matter. I believe it is but, in this case, the gifting was done publicly by press release. We do not know when it started or when it ended. It seems to have been down to one person to make this decision while blatantly ignoring the Committee of Public Accounts and the finance committee, thereby giving licence to anybody else to just not turn up to a committee and not be held to account by us. The manner in which the increase and the appointment happened leaves a lot to be desired. It did a disservice to civil servants and the public service.
The Minister said there would be no knock-on effects. I am not saying this is a knock-on effect, but I want to compare it. I refer to report No. 42 of the review body on higher remuneration in the public service, on which the Minister gave us a comprehensive response, in respect of senior managers within the HSE, many of them retired. They now are being put through another process to get what they have already been approved for by the Labour Court, yet for one man in one position it is a completely different matter. The public are absolutely outraged, and rightly so. These special arrangements have to stop. If this was a special arrangement - obviously, it was - there should be no further increases. The Minister should be suggesting to the individual who holds this position that it is special and separate, over and above what is there already, and, therefore, the increase should be treated differently. That is what I am suggesting. There has to be fair play here. I said the public are angry. Members of the Dáil were furious about the way this happened - not just the appointment and the increase, but the total disregard for parliamentary procedure by elected representatives and senior officials. I believe I have to make those comments because I have said things publicly and I wish to place it again on record as Deputy Farrell has raised the matter, and rightly so. I have made my views known. If the Minister wishes to comment, that is fair enough. If not, we can move on.
I will, of course, comment. As always, I greatly appreciate the honesty and frankness of the Chairman. He has made his views known on the issue quite consistently in recent times. However, as a Minister answering questions such as those being put to me, I have to set out the legal position and I cannot go beyond that. The truth is that when it comes to the gifting of a salary, it is anchored in taxation legislation. Every person is an individual taxpayer and has a right to privacy, so it is not for me to declare, even if I had the information, which I do not, when any individual started gifting or stopped gifting. I simply do not have that information and I am not actually entitled to it. I have to present the facts whether we like them or not. I do not always like the facts either but I cannot change them nonetheless.
The Building Momentum agreement involves three single 1% increases. The most recent increase on 1 February was structured around a sectoral bargaining process. There are several sectoral bargaining units that are still involved in a negotiation and may well not use that allocation of funding for a flat 1% increase. They may use it to resolve what they regard as outstanding issues. I expect several of those will come to a conclusion in the coming weeks and some of them will result in the resolution of issues that have been knocking around for quite a long time. That will be welcome. As regards the Civil Service, the sectoral bargaining units that were established have opted for the flat 1% increase under Building Momentum.
To correct the record because I do not wish to give the wrong impression, I think I misquoted at least one figure in the context of some of the recommendations made by the higher remuneration review body in the past. It recommended salaries of up to €318,000 for Secretaries General, €310,000 for the Taoiseach, €270,000 for the Tánaiste, €240,000 for Ministers and up to €270,000 for the heads of various colleges and universities. These recommendations were made back in 2007. I make those points by way of context. We have to think very carefully about the next steps. I am clear what the next step should be from my perspective and that is to have this independent panel, removed from the Department, have a fresh look at this area and make recommendations to me. I will be happy to engage with the committee again on the matter. I will be bringing recommendations to the Government in due course.
I put on record again that those are recommendations. The Minister can say "No" to a recommendation. He can say "No" to the €81,000 increase. He could provide the figure for himself. I will not go any deeper into that.
To whom are Secretaries General responsible? Who is the boss after the Secretary General?
The Minister has overall responsibility for the Department. Under the Public Service Management Act 1997, the division of responsibilities is clear. The Secretary General has responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Department but, essentially, takes policy direction from the Minister. The Minister sits at the top of the Department in the sense of setting policy. The Secretary General, in essence, is responsible for executing and implementing that policy in line with the functions that are laid out under the 1997 Act. That is the hierarchy. The question of dismissing a Secretary General is one for the Government as a collective. At the moment, under the Civil Service Regulation Acts we have a system whereby for grades up to but not including principal officer level, disciplinary action is a matter for the Secretary General. For an assistant secretary or a Secretary General, it goes to the Minister and, ultimately, in the case of a Secretary General, to the Government.
Should the Minister for Health have told his Secretary General to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts and the finance committee?
I am not going to get into the business of advising other Ministers publicly as to what they should or should not do. I have always been of the view, however, that co-operating with the work of Oireachtas committees is important. It is very important for Ministers and it is equally important for civil servants.
We have to be held accountable, for good or ill, for the decisions we make and the actions that we decide on. I am not going to advise the Minister for Health what he should or should not do but co-operating with Oireachtas committees is an essential part of our democracy. I always ask my officials to attend where they are invited to do so.
In the absence of Deputy Tóibín, I call Deputy Durkan.
The State Laboratory is mentioned here. To what extent does it provide services for the country, for the agrifood sector, sciences or health sector?
This is a very important office. The State Laboratory is under the aegis of my Department. It is our principal analytical chemistry laboratory and provides a comprehensive analytical and advisory service to the Government, Departments and offices. Its main clients include the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Revenue, the Coroner Service and the Office of the State Pathologist. The laboratory also provides services to the Departments of Transport; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Health; and State agencies including Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, the HSE and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. It provides really important services right across the Government and the public service.
Have the services been extended in recent times? Is it proposed to extend the availability of the services from the national laboratories? Do we as a State send samples abroad for analysis now? I know we did in the past. To what extent has the practice changed? Is there an intention to extend the services in the future?
Looking at the outputs from the State Laboratory, we have seen quite a significant increase in activity. Last year, the laboratory significantly exceeded its output target and issued 4,633 statements to assist the work of the courts, including coroners. The target was 4,000. That was due to the large increase in coroners' cases. It also provided expert scientific advice in 455 instances to their clients. That was below the target but mainly due to there being fewer requests for tariff clarification advice from Revenue than anticipated. That was as a result of the pandemic.
The laboratory was considered an essential service right through Covid-19. It remained open throughout the pandemic although the number of food and feed samples submitted for testing reverted to pre-pandemic levels following a slight reduction in 2020. The number of customs and excise samples submitted overall reduced further as Revenue officials were doing fewer on-site inspections last year. I gave the figure for the Coroner. We are seeing a significant overall increase in activity in the work it does.
Have we any information on the extent of samples sent abroad?
I do not have that information to hand but we will take a note and write to the committee with the information.
We get a lot of complaints about procurement and the national procurement services. The general thrust is that the procurement system is slow in general and clumsy in that it is unable to act quickly. Is that true? Is it slow in comparison with similar agencies elsewhere? How do we compete or compare? Is there an intention to make any improvements or updates to address the criticisms that we have all heard from time to time?
That is a good question: is procurement slow and when we measure its speed, how do we compare with other countries? It is essential that we have rapid procurement but that we also manage to get good value for money, that we obtain goods that are high quality and that we do so in a transparent way. We have to comply with European procurement law, first. Public procurement is all about fairness and giving everybody equal opportunity to compete. That means we do need to advertise and keep the competition open for a certain period. However, it should be done as quickly as possible within those constraints. That particularly applies now because we are in a period of inflation. If a procurement drags on for too long the price will have gone up and the requirements of the project may change over time. The last two years has been a really unusual period in procurement because of the pandemic. The normal rules of procurement were effectively suspended over the last two years. In a period where we had to obtain PPE in a hurry, for example, or anything related to the pandemic such as software to manage the vaccination roll out, while we tried to run competitive tenders they did not have to fit with the normal rules of procurement. We used whatever exemption clauses were available in an emergency. The procurement rules allow that when you have a general threat to public health, and when there is some kind of life and death emergency, you can speed up the rules. I meet every quarter with representatives of small businesses to ask them how they feel the procurement process is working for them and if they have any suggestions how it can be improved. We look at all aspects including Covid and Brexit procurement, disruption, inflation and so on. The issue of speed is not something that has arisen during that time. However, if there is someone the Deputy is representing or he has specific suggestions or an example of a procurement process that went very slowly, I would be happy to investigate if he sends details to my office.
Has the Minister of State heard suggestions in the course of discussions to the effect that the process is cumbersome? I know that we have to go through certain procedures to protect the integrity of State finances etc.
I have been told that someone might apply for a tender and they must type all their information in a second time, where it might have been there from another bid. So there is a suggestion that it should be stored. That is an IT system shortcoming. We are in the process of obtaining a new e-tenders system. The system for tendering, eTenders, is quite old at this stage. We have been tendering for a new tendering system. We are at an advanced stage on that. I expect that will deliver a better experience, less cumbersome approach and a more up-to-date way of applying to bid for a Government contract.
Is the Minister of State satisfied that the alleged shortcomings will be addressed in the course of the procedure now being undertaken?
I really think so. I have a particular IT focus myself. There was a lot of consultation with the people who take part in tenders to ask how they would like it to be done better. Any suggestions for improvements were incorporated in the terms recommended for the new tendering system. I think it will be something that is much faster and easier to use when applying for a contract. I take the Deputy's point about it being cumbersome to apply and not very user-friendly. I genuinely think that will be addressed in the new system.
I am looking at the funding need: major projects advisory group and delivery board, the allocations made in the budget, the national lottery consultancy project, the environmental impact studies for flood relief schemes, an urgent issue, and Project Ireland 2040 information campaign.
To what extent does the Department monitor advertising and its cost for State or semi-State bodies on an ongoing basis?
I thank the Deputy. In general, over the course of the Estimates process, we agree a budget for a particular Vote or area for the following year. That involves detailed negotiation, initially at official level, going through all the various subheads and looking at the needs of that particular body or Department. It is then negotiated at ministerial level and adopted as part of the budget, although it is fleshed out further if necessary in the Revised Estimates Volume for the year ahead. That is what we do. It is really a matter for the relevant Accounting Officer to properly account for the expenditure under his or her area of responsibility and ensure there is full compliance with the public spending code and value for money is secured at all times. Those are some of the key pillars on which our expenditure management strategy is based.
Despite what people might think, we do not micromanage everything from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. There is extensive ongoing contact between my officials and the officials in relevant line Departments. There are reporting requirements and channels used on an ongoing basis. If any issue of concern came to our attention or was raised by my officials, we would intervene. In general, however, it is a matter for the Accounting Officer of the relevant budget head to manage the expenditure, including on advertising.
What role does innovation take in the procedure within the Department? How does it apply to each Department in order to achieve the most effective and efficient delivery of services while keeping costs in line with the requirements, particularly at a time of potential inflation?
What we really want to see is a culture of innovation as innovation does not belong to any single Department. It is not the preserve of any one Minister and it should be right across government and the public service. The first point to make is we want to see ongoing reforms and new initiatives coming through all the time.
We co-ordinate this to an extent in my Department. For example, we have set up a public service innovation fund and we reward the bodies coming forward with ideas that we believe will have real impact and significant potential. We had a public service innovation week in November last year, which is one of a number of important initiatives that we facilitate under the implementation of the overall public service innovation strategy. I firmly believe that innovation does not come from one document or us telling people they must innovate. People need to identify solutions to problems we are facing and seek continuous improvement in the delivery of services for the general public. A core objective in my Department is to ensure we have good quality public services over a period.
Innovation is a constant but I am happy to provide any information the Deputy needs on the innovation strategy. I am also happy to provide examples of the projects we have funded under the public service innovation fund.
I thank the Minister.
Tá brón orm mar bhí orm seasamh amach as an gcruinniú ar feadh cúpla nóiméad. Gabhaim buíochas leis an mbeirt Airí as teacht anseo chun labhairt linn. To begin with I will speak to a report and I commend my colleagues on the EU committee on the good and detailed report that was considered and developed a number of weeks ago.
It is startling how there are two classes of people in the country today, the insiders and the outsiders. Most citizens have experienced approximately 31 separate price hikes over 2021 alone. Farmers have experienced a tripling in the price of fertiliser and home energy costs have increased by 50%. Inflation in November was at a 20-year high. In real terms, the vast majority of citizens have seen their income and purchasing power reduced over the past 12 months. These people have suffered in real terms. The Government has refused to deal with that income reduction by postponing the increase in carbon tax. It has refused to go to the EU to seek a VAT derogation on fuel, etc. It has instead offered people approximately €100 to deal with the staggering increases in the cost of living.
On the flip side there is another class of people, including a Secretary General who has seen an income increase of nearly 40% in the space of a year. That income has gone from €211,000 to €298,000. It would be a dream of most people in the country for that increase of almost €90,000 to be their total income. The report is quite clear that this was done and a figure was plucked out of the air without process or any international comparators. The Government had no system that could be verifiable or comparable and which could be measured or challenged in any way. The court of public opinion would see this as insiders very clearly looking after insiders. Is the new salary of the Secretary General in question a benchmark for other salaries in the public service?
I thank the Deputy. I will first comment on his earlier remarks and acknowledge that so many people across the country are really feeling the pressure of the inflation cycle we are currently experiencing. It is higher than was envisaged and it is likely to remain higher for longer than anticipated. In the budget last October, the forecast of the Department of Finance was that inflation would average approximately 2.2% across 2022 but it is now likely to be higher than that. As we know from recent Central Statistics Office and EUROSTAT figures, it is well in excess of 5% in the most recent measurement. That is a concern.
The Government responded in the budget, with the information we had at the time, with a package of well over €1 billion on tax reductions, which many people across the House did not support. It is one way of giving workers more money back in their pockets. There were also targeted social welfare improvements. Both measures amounted to well over €1 billion, and many measures on the welfare side in particular were targeted, including the change that came into effect immediately on budget night extending the eligibility to the fuel allowance. There were some very welcome changes to certain carer's allowances means tests and so on that had not been changed for well over a decade.
We made changes that will help but if the question is whether they go far enough, I believe we can never go far enough now given the current level of inflation. We are conscious of it and it is why we are bringing forward the electricity credit of €113.50, including VAT. We will continue to keep that under review because we know people are feeling pressure now. The issue is actively being examined and kept under review.
The Deputy spoke about a report and I acknowledge the work that went into it, as well as its findings. The Deputy will have heard what I said earlier by way of action points that I am instituting as Minister, having considered the issues. I relayed some background on this a year ago when I came before this committee on the matter. There was a failed attempt to recruit a chief executive officer of the Health Service Executive in 2018 and the process had to be aborted because it was not possible to get a candidate. The salary at the time was over €300,000.
As the Deputy knows, it ended up being increased further for the present incumbent who successfully came through the process. On the question of it becoming a reference point, I do not believe this is the case, nor have I seen evidence of it across the Civil Service or public service over the past 12 months. I do not view it as a reference point. A decision was taken given there was a vacancy in the Department at a time of national crisis. The previous Minister and then Secretary General departed the Department of Health on the same day. In the summer of 2020 there was a leadership vacuum. There was no easy way to fill it or address it. The view was arrived at that we wanted to go to the market to get the best candidate who put himself or herself forward. It was agreed there would be an increased salary for the position of Secretary General in the Department of Health. We know what happened subsequently. We had the open competitive process. Some months later an appointment was made. It is important to make these points by way of context.
Go raibh maith agat a Aire. The Minister said he could never go far enough but he did go far enough for Robert Watt and his wage. It is very interesting and quite startling that he said this will not form a benchmark or a reference point for other salaries in the public service. What he is saying is that the figure is not part of any process. He is saying it is independent of any system or reference point and it is a personal deal. The Minister is saying it is not possible to use this as a benchmark in future. He is saying that if people argue their salary should be 90% of this salary he will not agree because this is a personal deal with a particular individual in a particular role that is insulated and isolated from the role of everybody else in the Civil Service. By doing this he is simply underlining and reinforcing the whole point the committee has made that this is an individual wage for an individual person.
The Deputy needs to be very careful about saying this is a personal deal of some kind. This was a decision made on the salary for a post. That post is the Secretary General of the Department of Health. That decision was made. The post went to an open public competition advertised in Ireland and internationally. The selection of the successful candidate was recommended by the Top Level Appointments Committee. I do not think the Deputy should call into question the character or good name of the people involved in the process.
You said-----
Let me finish and make the point. The Deputy made an accusation that this was a personal deal. In my view he is impugning the good name and character of all of the people involved in the selection process. I do not believe this is fair or accurate.
May I make come in?
Of course. I am sure the Chair will give the Deputy loads of time to respond. When it comes to the question of the case being made by others that this is the benchmark or anchor for future public pay policy, people make cases all the time for pay increases. Pay claims come in constantly. I ask the Deputy to point to an example where the salary associated with this post has led to wage inflation elsewhere in the system.
Are wages not benchmarked in the public sector?
Will the Deputy explain what he means?
Are wages at different grades benchmarked against each other in the public sector?
We have, as the Deputy knows, across the system of Secretaries General a number of tiers at present. We have four tiers or levels of Secretaries General. It is an issue I will examine in drawing up the terms of reference for the independent review panel. There is merit in looking at the respective tiers. We have had significant transfer of functions in recent years. We need to have a fresh look at this whole area. It is not about bringing anyone up to a certain level or to have a benchmark we are working towards. This is not my mindset. I assure the Deputy that anyone making the case he or she should get an increase in pay because of the post of the Secretary General in the Department of Health will not get a good audience from me.
Is the post of Secretary General in the Department of Health one of those four tiers?
At present we have Secretaries General working across government in a number of these tiers. I will not ask an independent review panel to examine figures and make recommendations to me on pay levels. This is not what this is about; what it is about is examining the process. It can make recommendations. The Deputy and his colleagues have already made a recommendation that we would set up a higher remuneration review body. I am not clear whether the Deputy's intention is that such a body would decide on pay and, therefore, that the legislation underpinning the power I or future incumbents in this role have to make a decision would be removed and given to an independent body outside of the Oireachtas. The Deputy might wish to provide clarity on this. Is he saying that such a body would make a recommendation to the Minister? Under the law it is the Minister who makes the decision.
I am only asking the Minister whether salaries are benchmarked. I asked the Minister whether this wage is part of the four tiers and I did not get an answer on it. I did not get an answer with regard to the benchmarking in the public service.
I will give the Deputy a simple answer. There is no benchmarking process under way.
My point is that salaries operate in comparison to each other. They relate to each other. They are not independent of each other. In answer to the question I asked on this particular salary the Minister said this particular salary is fully independent and isolated from all other salaries and will not be used as a benchmark or a tool by anybody to look for salary increase in future. This underlines and reiterates the points in the report and the public concern about this. This salary debacle was independent of any process or system and independent of other people's salaries.
I have already said to the Deputy that people will always make the case for a pay increase. They will always point to other people and ask why they earn that while they earn this. I have also given the Deputy a very clear statement that no one has made the case to me on this particular post.
Yet.
Nobody has. If anybody did and sought a pay increase on the basis of perceived relativity with that particular post it is not something I would sanction. It is a matter for future Ministers as to what they might decide to do.
The Government sees itself as a government of fiscal prudence. It regularly tells people to lower their expectations with regard to pay rises. Whole sectors of the public service, such as the Defence Forces, have been waiting for pay rises for a long period and have been refused them. Yet we have this significant largesse at this critical level of the Civil Service. Is the wage performance-related?
There is a system of accountability in place. It is a matter for each Minister working with the Secretary General of the Department to agree the strategy and business plan for the Department for the year ahead and then, on an ongoing basis, to monitor performance and discuss the achievement of the milestones set out. This is certainly the basis on which I operate and run my Department. It is in a spirit of collaboration. We all expect the highest standards of performance from the people sitting at the top of the Civil Service in our respective Departments. I certainly do and I certainly get that performance also.
The country is quite shocked by what happened in the mental health services for children in Kerry, as detailed in the report just released. If other cases of HSE failings of children were to occur, that could potentially have a downward effect on the Secretary General's salary of nearly €300,000.
It is not necessarily fair to conflate directly those issues. What happened in Kerry with the provision of services was an appalling failure that should never have happened. The leadership of the Department of Health and the leadership of the HSE have a deadly serious job of work to do now to fix that and to support those families in any way they can. However, linking that to a reduction in someone's salary is just not-----
I am linking it to performance. Surely there is accountability. The Minister mentioned that there is a performance-related element to this as well.
As I said, it is a matter for the line Minister to come to a view on the performance of his or her Secretary General. It is not for me to judge the performance of another Secretary General in his or her day-to-day work.
I call on Deputy Carthy.
The Minister was part of the decision to award an increase of €81,000 in the salary of the Secretary General of the Department of Health. The Minister has talked about some of the deliberations involved. Will he remind us who brought the proposal for €81,000 specifically to him and to the other senior members of the Cabinet who were part of this decision?
That question was the subject of the committee's work and was answered in the course of that work and a very lengthy report that has issued. If the Deputy wants me to go over the history of the matter, I am happy to give him a summary.
No. I just want to know who it was. Who was the individual or section or Department that brought that specific figure to the Minister's attention for approval?
As somebody who, I believe, was involved in the compilation of the report, the Deputy will be familiar with the background to this and the fact that in, I believe, late October 2020 there was a meeting in Government Buildings. The Minister for Health convened the meeting and explained to those present, including me, the Taoiseach and the Secretary General to the Government, that there was a need to appoint a Secretary General to the Department of Health. As I said earlier, the previous incumbent left at the same time as the previous Minister-----
It is a very simple question. Was it the Minister for Health who brought the proposal for €81,000 to that meeting or was it somebody else who-----
I think the Deputy is very familiar with the report and with the process and the steps involved. If he wants me to take him through it-----
I take it that the Minister is not going to answer the question.
I have answered it but-----
I will ask my second question. Did the Minister, in his role, question that figure? Did he ask why it was not €51,000 or €101,000 as opposed to €81,000? Was he happy, on the basis of the information that was brought to his attention, that €81,000 was a fair increase to be sought for this position in the context he has outlined?
I am happy to answer every one of the Deputy's questions but I ask to be given time to do so. There is no point in just firing questions at me and not allowing me the scope to answer them. There was a very open and frank discussion at the meeting to which I referred a moment ago. I believe the minutes of that meeting were provided to the committee and have been published. A number of options were looked at at that time as to how the issue could be faced up to. We were dealing with a global pandemic. The Department of Health was under enormous strain and there was a leadership vacuum there. Somebody was acting up and doing the very best they could, but there was a need for a permanent appointment. The collective view arrived at was that in order to attract a top-quality candidate, there would be a need to go beyond the normal terms. We discussed previous examples of that and the history of it. As I said earlier, there was, in 2018, a failed attempt to recruit a CEO for the HSE on a salary that, I think, exceeded €300,000. That was the reality. One of the options that was looked at was whether anyone from among all the existing Secretaries General would be interested in going into the role on a permanent basis. In the round, however, the collective view was that an enhanced package was warranted and that there should be an open, public competition. I was particularly keen, especially if we were to offer an enhanced package, that everyone should be given an opportunity to apply for the position. That is subsequently what happened when that process took place in the subsequent months. There was a lot of interest in the role, as one would expect, including a number of international candidates. The candidates selected came through the top-level appointments committee process and through a number of interviews, and the Minister for Health was offered one name out of that process. He then brought that name to the Government for approval.
In fairness, the Minister had ample time to respond on that occasion. I have asked him two questions so far, neither of which have been answered. I wish to make that point.
As for the rationale the Minister and some of his colleagues have given for approving this salary level, the first, which the Taoiseach outlined no later than an hour or so ago when I raised this with him in the Dáil, was that the Department of Health and our health services are in need of substantial reform and improvement and, therefore, the person at the helm would want a significant salary package. Does the Minister agree with that?
I agree about the centrality of the role of the Department of Health, not just during a global pandemic. Of course, there will be an aftermath, a legacy and consequences of the pandemic. Unfortunately, the immediate consequence is increased waiting lists. The person sitting at the top of the Department of Health, working with the HSE, will be instrumental in meeting the Government policy objectives, one of which is to have a fit-for-purpose, single-tier health service and to implement Sláintecare. We have provided a record budget, as the Deputy will know, of over €22 billion to make progress in that regard. There is an enormous body of complex, challenging, difficult work that needs to be done in the Department of Health to improve the Irish health service, and I and my colleagues across the Government regard that as a key priority in the coming years.
In the Minister's previous answer to another Deputy, he talked about the accountability mechanisms and the arrangements between the Secretary General and his or her line Minister. Is there a mechanism in place that would allow for a reduction in the salary of the Secretary General?
I do not have the contract with me, but I imagine, in the absence of a renegotiation of a contract, that that is very unlikely. As I said, I do not have the contract here. I cannot give the Deputy a definitive answer to that question, but a provision in a contract providing for a downward revision for a Civil Service appointment I would regard as unlikely. However, I would have to check that.
I agree with the Minister on that. A substantial salary package - the highest ever awarded to an Irish civil servant and, in fact, one of the highest packages available to any civil servant in the world - is attributed to a position on the basis of the importance of the job the holder of that position has to do. The Minister mentioned the policy objectives: the implementation of Sláintecare, reform of the health services, addressing waiting lists and dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic. Nevertheless, the Secretary General could fail in all those respects. He or she could oversee growing waiting lists, continued mismanagement and a move from one fiasco to another in the health services, but the Secretary General's salary would continue to grow and his or her pension entitlements would continue to be locked in regardless. Does the Minister see that as a failure of the contract that was put in place for this position in that it undermines the credibility of the argument the Government has put forward?
It is open to the Government to remove a Secretary General. The Government can do that but that step is not taken lightly. There is-----
There are two streams, therefore.
An accountability framework is in place. The responsibilities of the Secretary General are clear under the legislation. It is about day-to-day management of responsibility, while the Minister has overall policy responsibility and makes decisions in respect of policy. The relevant Minister in each Department must ensure that there is adequate performance measurement. I have such a process in place and I have no doubt every other Minister does too. It is important, when we are agreeing on the plan for the Department for the year ahead, that we clearly define the goals and milestones and what we expect to be achieved. The removal of a Secretary General is a matter for the Government, although it is not something that is countenanced lightly, as would be expected.
The second justification we have heard in respect of this salary increase is that it allowed the Government to ensure that the best person internationally for the job could be attracted to it. Is that something the Minister agreed with as part of the rationale?
In essence, yes. When a post is advertised in open competition, we never know who will apply. For a position of that importance for the State, we certainly want the best people in the world to apply. Having a revised salary was certainly an attraction for people to apply. A number of international candidates applied to the process and, ultimately, the members of the Top-Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, conducted the interviews with the support of the Public Appointments Service and arrived at a single name. One name was provided to the Minister for Health and he brought it to the Government. It is up to TLAC to provide up to three names. In my case, for example, as Deputies will be aware, I decided on an open competition for a successor appointment in my Department and I was given three names by TLAC following that open competition process. It was then a matter for me to consider the options and to bring one name to the Government, and that is what I did.
I wonder whether the people who were sitting in that room, who approved the €81,000, did not feel like awful eejits afterwards. They committed €81,000 of taxpayers' money to get the best in the world, and, lo and behold, the best in the world was here all along. In fact, he was actually in the Minister's Department, which is responsible for the prudent management of public finances, all along. Did nobody think of asking Mr. Watt whether he would be willing to take on the role permanently at his existing salary? Was that question ever asked?
The salary that was agreed on was a salary for the post. In filling the post, the decision was made to hold an open competition. When there is an open competition, the Minister no longer has control of the outcome. He or she must trust, quite rightly in my view, the integrity, competence and professionalism of the people involved in the selection process. We are fortunate to have really good people serving on TLAC. They are given a mandate and they go about their work. They went about their work, narrowed down the applicants, interviewed a range of candidates and made a recommendation to the Minister for Health. That was the outcome-----
I do not know how I would feel if I had agreed a salary package with an additional €81,000 and it subsequently turned out that the person who got the job was already doing it for a substantially lower figure. I am not sure how any business person could consider himself or herself as such after that.
It was mentioned earlier that, on top of the €81,000 pay rise that has been discussed, the Secretary General of the Department of Health got a subsequent increase, in November, of almost €3,000. He got a further increase of €3,000 yesterday. Did the Minister sign off on, or have any role in agreeing to, those two wage hikes?
No, there was no requirement to sign off on that because a public service pay deal, Building Momentum, applies across the board. It applied last year and again applies this year. As part of that, there are three separate 1% pay increases, in October of last year and February and October of this year. The February increase, which has just occurred, is slightly different for some public servants because we offered an opportunity to form a sectoral bargaining unit. Instead of using the money for a flat 1% increase, it could be used to settle outstanding grievances. A number of sectoral bargaining units are continuing to negotiate in that context and I expect that will conclude in the coming weeks. In the Civil Service, none of the sectoral bargaining units decided to use the envelope for anything other than a flat 1% increase, so that has been applied in accordance with the circular that issued to implement this element of the pay deal.
It is automatically - hey presto - an increase of €3,000 in each of the three months. Is another pay rise for this post coming?
The public service pay deal provides for an increase of approximately 3% over a two-year period to the end of the current year. Two of those increases have been implemented. For all public servants, including civil servants, the third leg will come into play on 1 October of this year.
On 1 October, therefore, the Secretary General of the Department of Health will get a further pay rise of almost €3,000. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Under the current pay deal, which applies to every public and civil servant who is party to the pay deal, as the overwhelming majority are, there will be a further increase of 1% on 1 October. That will apply to the Deputy and his colleagues and to civil servants across the board.
"Yes" is the answer to the question I put.
The Chairman asked this question earlier. Did it not strike anyone as sensible to ensure, contractually, that these pay hikes would not be applicable to this position given its unique and bizarre nature and the fact we had already, through the Minister's good offices, approved an €81,000 pay hike? Did nobody say the position did not need a further €9,000 within a 12-month period from November of last year?
The way the negotiation of public service pay deals works is that there is a collective negotiation between the employer side and representatives of the employees. The employees are represented by the unions, which are affiliated to ICTU. What is negotiated is a collective agreement that applies to everyone who comes under it across the public service and the Civil Service. What is not done in a collective, national agreement that covers about 360,000 people is to seek to carve out one cohort, or perhaps the Deputy is suggesting one individual. That is not the way a collective agreement for public service pay is negotiated.
It strikes me that the agreement is collective when it suits and is an individual arrangement when it does not. The Minister was asked earlier about the position of waiving salaries and he mentioned that I, as a Deputy, will get an increase at some stage this year. I will waive it, in the same way the Minister does in respect of a portion of his salary. He said something that I thought was strange. He stated it was none of his business whether people waive a portion of their salary. Am I not correct in stating that when anybody within the public sector waives a portion of his or her salary, that goes back to the Exchequer to be spent on other areas?
The point I was making was I do not have a legal right to accessing that information. The Deputy is correct in stating the money I give back every year, and that which the Deputy and others give back, comes into the central Exchequer and is used accordingly for all the purposes for which we spend public money. My point was that the mechanism for waiving the money, or actually gifting it back to the Exchequer, is through the Taxes Consolidation Act; it is anchored in taxation legislation.
It is a fundamental tenet of our tax system that people do have a right to privacy, so I do not have a right to know how much an individual is gifting back every year. People can make a voluntary declaration if they so wish. On the other hand, they do not have to. I am just outlining what the factual position is.
I appreciate that.
It goes back into the central Exchequer through the Minister for Finance. I do not get a report on it. It is not the case that I am sitting on information that I am not prepared to give to the Deputy. I do not have that information and I do not get it, nor do I think I would be entitled to it.
Okay, so taking that on board, and on the understanding that people make their own personal decisions in that regard, this was a peculiar decision. The Government press office and the press office of the Department of Health issued a statement on the day of Mr. Watt’s appointment as permanent Secretary General in the Department of Health. The statement that was issued through a public body stated that Mr. Watt was delighted to take up the position and that he was waiving the increased portion of his salary for an unspecified amount of time. This is my final question in this regard. Does the Minister think it would be helpful in the interests of transparency and accountability if Mr. Watt were to outline in a public fashion the period of time he waived that portion of his salary?
I think it is entirely a matter for himself. I do not want to get into the space of calling on someone to do anything. I am a Minister and I have legal responsibilities in regard to the functions I have to discharge in the Department. I always believe in being as open and transparent as possible. I, as a Minister, and senior civil servants are accountable. We are accountable to relevant Oireachtas committees. As the Chairman acknowledged, I co-operated fully with the work this committee did and with the Committee of Public Accounts. A year ago, today, I appeared before the committee on this issue and I also provided as much documentation as I had regarding it. What I cannot do is go beyond the legal parameters. It is very much a matter for each individual. I am happy to declare I have made a substantial gifting of salary. I am happy to do so, but I am not going to call on anybody else to declare what their own personal intentions are in that regard.
I did not ask the Minister to call on anybody; I just asked if he thought it would be helpful. I note his answer.
Will you indulge me, Chair, to ask questions on different matters or are other members seeking to come in?
The Deputy is due to wind up, but he can go ahead as he is representing Deputy Doherty.
The Government previously revised pay rates for CEOs of State bodies, including Horse Racing Ireland, HRI. Does the Minister think that was a mistake, considering that he has essentially reversed that decision with the most recent appointment of the new chief executive of HRI?
I think it is important to make the point that there is no increase in salary relative to what the previous incumbent was on. The salary for that particular post has not been increased. We went through a process with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and NewERA on this. Because it is a commercial State body, my own role as Minister in this regard is to give consent or choose not to give consent to a salary level that is being proposed by the Minister. There was contact over a number of months between the two Departments. My Department requested further information from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in relation to it. We would have requested a business case. A business case was prepared and assessed by NewERA and it recommended the salary level that ultimately was agreed upon. It fell to me then as Minister to give consent, which I did. In that particular case the level of salary was at the same level as the previous incumbent in that post.
Previously, it was agreed that the salary for the new position, when it became available would be approximately €137,000. The package that was signed off on is closer to €200,000. The Minister mentioned that the Department examined a business case. Is it correct that the business case was compiled by Horse Racing Ireland itself?
No, it would have been compiled by NewERA, which advises the Government on its relationship with commercial State bodies.
So NewERA-----
It provides independent advice to the Government on that.
Did NewERA compile its own business case on this issue?
The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine would have made a request or a recommendation that would have come to me. My officials would then have got involved in seeking a significant amount of additional information and would have sought the advice of NewERA, including a business case. Ultimately, it would have come to us then with a recommendation on the salary level that was sanctioned, which was at the same level as the previous incumbent.
That is interesting news to me, because my understanding was that the business case was compiled by HRI itself. If it was compiled by NewERA, is it possible for this committee to receive a copy of the business case?
I will examine that for the Deputy, but there may well be some issues of commercial sensitivity. It is not a document that I own, but I will make inquiries on that. I would be happy to come back to the committee in writing on that.
That would be welcome, because commercial sensitivity is mentioned quite a bit in relation to some State bodies that have no commercial competitor, so it often strikes me as a bit strange.
I want to ask a few very brief questions on the freedom of information unit that lies within the Minister’s Department. How much funding did it receive last year and what is the estimated budget for 2022?
I ask the Deputy to bear with me. I am not sure I have the specific figure for the unit to hand. I will look through the briefing pack, but I am not sure it goes into that level of detail. If I do not have it, I will certainly come back to the Deputy. I do not think I have it.
Does the Minister have an idea about the percentage increase or is it standstill funding?
Just by way of background, as the Deputy is aware, we are doing a major review of the FOI legislation. We have already held one round of public consultation and we had more than 1,200 submissions, so there is a huge amount of interest in it. In the coming months I hope to bring proposals to the Government for legislation to reform, modernise and update our freedom of information system. The FOI unit within my Department does not process FOI requests that go to all of the Government, it only deals with the ones that come to the Department. It also provides support and policy advice at a central level to all of the other FOI officers that are across the system. It is important to be clear on what we do. We do manage and have responsibility for the overall policy on FOI, but the FOI office in my Department only deals with the freedom of information requests that come in to us.
Yes. I am talking about the policy itself. I note the Minister’s remarks about the review that is ongoing. In a bid to be helpful, my own party colleague, Deputy Mairéad Farrell, has published legislation in this regard. I understand it is being brought to the Dáil tomorrow evening. Will the Minister support the legislation?
We have agreed as a Government to bring forward a timed amendment to the legislation, for the reason that it raises a number of issues but, to be frank, the Bill needs to be entirely redrafted. It proposes to publish the names of certain individual recipients of pensions, but the way it is drafted copper-fastens the existing position. I do not believe we should vote against the Bill, as I understand where it is coming from but the comprehensive Bill that we are preparing will be the best vehicle to bring about the reforms that are needed to the freedom of information system. We will have the proposals finalised in the coming months.
Is it not a pattern though that when legislative proposals for reform are being brought, Government either rejects them, nods them through with no intention of proceeding or, in this instance, puts forward a timing amendment to kick it down the road?
I examine each Bill on its own merits. In the weeks ahead, for example, I will be going through a detailed legislative process with Deputy Farrell and others on the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2021. I am open to amending that Bill. I am open to accepting Opposition amendments. I am not precious about these things at all. I am very pragmatic. If I believe a Bill moves things on in a positive way, I will embrace it.
We did, however, examine the Bill to which the Deputy referred and it does not do what it sets out to do; let us just say that much. It would require an enormous volume of work and that is work we are doing anyway in the context of our own Bill. I felt it was a much more efficient and better use of our resources to work on the Government Bill. If there are amendments, as I said, I will certainly consider them on their merits, wherever they come from.
Time will be the judge of that. There have been a number of high-profile incidents where Ministers, in particular, have not been following the guidelines set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2014, particularly with regard to backchannels of communication or the deletion of private messages.
The Minister's Department sets guidance that I believe dates back to 2015, which states that public bodies must advise individuals when a "person who without lawful excuse and intention to deceive destroys or materially alters a record". Do those requirements and provisions apply to Ministers and their special advisers?
I do not believe it is legal for anyone to destroy records that are the subject of an FOI request. I am aware of one of the provisions in the Private Members' Bill to which the Deputy refers that provides for a referral to SIPO. One of the issues that arose when we examined that was it was not clear what SIPO would do with that or what powers it currently has. That issue could not just be dealt with amending the freedom of information legislation. One would also need to look at the accompanying ethics legislation and the legislation underpinning the workings of SIPO. That just gives an example of the complexity of it. Certainly, to my knowledge, no one is exempt from the requirement that a person should not destroy records to deliberately avoid FOI requests.
Deputy Carthy will have to leave it at that.
This is my final question. It is with regard to current policy. Are there policy guidelines in place specifically dealing with the use of private messaging services, whether it be text message, WhatsApp or other such services, by members of Government in their conduct of Government business? If so, where is that guidance or policy set out?
Every Department has its own data management policy that sets out the requirements relating to the management and keeping of records. Those policies are in place and publicly available. Everyone obviously must be compliant with them insofar as they can.
What happens then if a Minister, for example, is not compliant and deletes something he or she was obliged to retain under the Freedom of Information Acts and the guidelines that have been set down?
That is one of the issues we will have to examine as part of the review. It is absolutely wrong. It is the subject of sanction whereby anybody in possession of documents or information that needs to be retained for FOI purposes must retain that. If a person wilfully and deliberately destroys documents to avoid disclosure by way of FOI, that is the subject of sanction. We will provide those full details of the current position in that regard to the Deputy and also details of the review that is under way by way of a written reply.
I have one very last question. What is that sanction?
I do not have it at my fingertips.
That is fine.
I do not want to mislead the Deputy or the committee. I will get those facts and come back to him in writing.
I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
The Minister might clarify a couple of questions. He answered questions with regard to that new appointment in Horse Racing Ireland. He said that was not a new pay increase. I am looking at a newspaper headline that notes a "€52,000 pay rise for Horse Racing Ireland chief". When was that pay rise granted? Was it with that new appointment or previous to that?
I do not have that article in front of me. I assume it refers to the increase a person would have received having been promoted to the position of chief executive. The salary that was sanctioned did not represent an increase relative to the person who previously held that position. I assume that is where that article got the figure from. Certainly, I distinctly recall this issue coming to me. It was very clear that the salary in question did not constitute an increase for the post.
I do not understand that. It was an increase offered to the individual who was taking up that position. Is that not correct?
In the same way that anyone being promoted from assistant secretary to Secretary General is going to get a pay increase. The level of pay sanctioned for this position was the same as the level of pay the person who previously held the post was earning.
Okay. When was that increase given to the person who previously held the post?
The increase was in respect of being promoted and when someone is promoted, he or she generally gets an increase
Unless the Minister is telling me this article is completely incorrect, it refers to "a €190,000 annual salary with a company car" and "the starting salary set for the role had been ... €137,356". I am raising this to clarify the issue. Deputy Carthy brought it up in his first question. The article goes on to state, "The contract also said a car allowance of €13,150 along with reasonable mileage would be paid to the new chief executive." It would appear that at some stage, this increase was sanctioned and that an allowance for a car and mileage was also sanctioned. It was for the person taking up the office of chief executive. There was, therefore, an increase.
To be thorough about this and make sure we get it right, I will write to the Chairman in detail on it. Certainly, the information at my disposal was that the salary for the incumbent CEO of HRI at that time was the figure that has been quoted of a little over €190,000. I will examine that and read the article to which the Chairman refers.
It is similar to some of the articles people would have read, for example, about the fact that some car company sponsored a car for the chief executive of the HSE. I do not know whether that is true or false. I do not know whether Government sanctions that. It is just to make sure from the Minister's perspective and the work of this committee that whatever information is out there is correct or is misleading.
Of course.
That is the point I am making about HRI and similarly in respect of the HSE and the salary in that regard. Is it true that some car company sponsors the car? I do not know that. I am asking because we are asked as we go about our business in our constituencies. The Minister might come back on that.
He mentioned collective agreements. We could call the pay increase for school secretaries a collective agreement. Presumably, it had to be cleared by the Minister's Department. That has not been paid yet. Is that being held up by the Department? Is it in the process of approval? Where is it at? If he does not have the answer, he can come back to me.
First, to be clear on Horse Racing Ireland, the briefing note I have, which is consistent with my memory of it, is that the terms do not represent an increase in the terms for the outgoing CEO. I will certainly check it out once again and come back to the Chairman. With regard to the provision of a car to the CEO of the HSE, my understanding is that was consistent with the package that was agreed in 2019.
We will drop the Chairman a note on that although it is primarily a matter for the Department of Health and the HSE.
I understand that.
In relation to the school secretaries, I am anxious to see that agreement implemented. I believe that there was a hearing in the past week, ten days or so. There is a further outstanding issue in relation to pay or pay during periods of leave. I will seek an update on that from my officials and from the Department of Education but I am anxious to have that issue resolved. We all hold in high regard the work of our school secretaries and, indeed, our caretakers. I will follow-up on that and see what the current state of play is, but that is my understanding of where it currently stands. It has been before the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and there is now that outstanding issue that needs to be resolved.
In relation to procurement, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, about the procurement of legal services across the various Departments. Each of us would be aware of the amount of money that can be spent or racked up by legal firms in relation to the Department defending a case or other. For example, the victims of Thalidomide have their 25th Minister for Health in the course of all of this issue being debated publicly and in their efforts to seek a solution, and it is tied up in court. I wonder on issues like that if there are specific procurement rules with which each Department must comply with regarding the appointment of legal representatives and who keeps control on them. Who says, for example, in the middle of the debate around the Thalidomide issue, "That is enough, because we will spend too much on legal fees, and let us reach an agreement"? Is there any common sense applied as it goes along?
For a start, the question is, does one have to use the frameworks for legal services or do Departments have to use the centrally agreed arrangements. It is Government policy - it is a decision of Government - that all divisions of Government need to use the available arrangements where they apply.
There are frameworks for legal services. There are some that are specialist and niche covering particular areas and then there are general frameworks. One is meant to draw on those unless there are exceptional circumstances where one can show why one should not use them.
I think the Chairman's specific question is, is it possible to negotiate outside of that to get better terms. Is that what the Chairman is asking, where there is a particular circumstance that this would apply?
No. Where one enters into a procurement process, one has one's legal team representing one and the case drags on. Is there any way within that procurement process where somebody can step in and say that one has racked up huge amounts of money here in terms of costs and fees and what one should be doing is finding a resolution to the problem? At what stage in the procurement process can one call a halt to what is going on and negotiate the outcome rather than be on the steps of the court?
It is sensible always to use arbitration options where they are available. One cannot opt out of the legal process. If somebody wants to take one to court, he or she can. It is not always clear who is to blame in those cases when there are two parties and one cannot dismiss somebody, for example, as a candidate for a bid, because we have spent so much money on legal services or because we are having a fractious relationship. I agree that where a negotiated or arbitrated form of decision or arrangement can be made, the courts should always be avoided. That is usually the case. Most people avoid litigation where they can.
There is a commercial skills academy which is provided by the Office of Government Procurement to train up procurement officers across the public sector so that they will have the skills to be able to carry out the negotiations that are required on large public sector contracts. Of course, the goal is always to avoid the legal option.
Where there is a protracted legal dispute, it is not always clear who is to blame, who is in the right and who is in the wrong on that case. It is important that our procurement staff are properly trained up.
Maybe to give a more stark example of this, the children's hospital goes through the procurement process, all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted, and they follow the rule that the Minister of State has set down in terms of procurement. It is fair to say that it has all gone wrong. Was it that the procurement process itself was weak, was it that the contracts are weak, or what has caused not only that problem but others across the various Departments? Is the Minister of State examining that because some paperwork within all of this process has failed?
When one has a procurement that ends up in protracted litigation, that certainly is a bad outcome. It is an expensive outcome for all sides and it is not something that anybody wants. When that happens, it is important to examine, carry out an inquiry and find out what is the cause of that. I guess that is why the report on the children's hospital was commissioned to see how things could be done differently. I do not want to comment on that particular case but the Chairman has extended it to the more general case.
When people end up in litigation when they are in a contract with each other, it often comes down to a failure to disambiguate the terms at the start of the process and to make sure that people are not at cross purposes over what services or goods will be delivered and when, and that the contract is fully disambiguated as well. I guess there is a learning for the Government and there is a learning for State agencies, and there is a learning as well for people who are bidding for contracts, in that.
The Chairman asked me what has been done to avoid that. The commercial skills academy is an important part of that. It is important that the specification of our projects in future is carefully done. We have a number of new structures that have been put in place in the past couple of years to monitor very large procurement projects. It has been a particular interest of the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, to make sure that the very large projects that are included in the national development plan have monitoring processes in place to keep track of those projects and to make sure they are on track and that they do not drift off and move into protracted litigation.
Does the Minister of State monitor the non-compliance with the procurement strategy that he has set out? Are there Departments or agencies that are particularly bad at using the system? Is there a monitoring role in the Department to show up these weaknesses?
The Comptroller and Auditor General has a role in assessing to what extent there have been non-competitive procedures used for procurement across all Departments. The Comptroller and Auditor General goes in and compiles a report to see what proportion of contracts are non-compliant or non-competitive. Sometimes it is possible to have a non-competitive contract which is compliant. There are cases where a competition is not warranted and the contract is still in compliance with the law. For example, if there is only one person who can offer that particular service, then there will not be a competition. The result of that is the Comptroller and Auditor General publishes that report and it goes to the Committee of Public Accounts. If one wants to compare across the different Departments and agencies, one can see who has the highest level of non-competitive contracts or non-compliant contracts. I suppose that provides an opportunity for Oireachtas committees, such as this one, to invite in the Accounting Officer to ask why he or she is not complying or is purchasing goods and service for his or her Department without going through a competitive process.
In terms of the SME sector, what would the Minister of State say to the SME when it expresses concerns about being excluded from some of these contracts?
Some of them are held locally. They do not hold them anymore, because a bigger firm has gotten it. They may be used as part of the delivery chain. What words of comfort does the Minister of State have for the SME sector?
I have more than words of comfort. We have done a lot of work with the SME representative bodies to make sure that they are included in these contracts, that they are fairly treated and that they are not pushed out by larger, better-resourced organisations that might then deliver a worse service to Government. We are therefore keen that we get small firms that successfully tender for business. The majority of the spend on public procurement in Ireland goes to SMEs. Most of it goes to companies that are situated within Ireland.
I regularly meet with representatives and I ask them what changes they would like to see in the procurement framework and in the way that we do our procurement. They come to me with specific problems. Over the last year, they have come to me with questions about inflation, professional indemnity insurance, Brexit, emergency procurement during Covid-19 and how they can bring contracts, for example, during the pandemic. I meet with people who represent all of the different sectors. For example, the Construction Industry Federation is there, as is the Small Firms Association, ISME and IBEC. We have a co-operative relationship. I am rarely unable to help them in their requests. We work together to make sure that Irish companies get a fair share of the pie and they can competitively obtain contracts.
One of the things that I particularly want to do is to make sure that smaller, high-tech companies can win contracts for software services in Ireland. This is because many of the most innovative companies tend to be fairly small. We managed during the pandemic to award contracts in an emergency process to smaller companies. We are looking at, for example, the strategic platforms for innovation and research in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and seeing if within that mechanism we can include more smaller high-tech companies in Government contracts.
I should say to the Minister that at a private session today we agreed to review the Ministers and Secretaries Act. He mentioned a further Act of 1997. We would welcome any background materials that he might have regarding those Acts, how they were changed or how the Minister might like to see them changed or reformed in the future. This is because most of what we are talking about goes back to accountability and responsibility. It is time that many of those Acts, as well as other amending Acts, were taken and examined in the context of modern HR management and of the responsibilities of senior people within any organisation, just as we are doing with the senior executive accountability regime and the banks. Of course, it is always a point of interest for me that I clock in every day that I come up here. Does the Minister think that the Secretaries General should clock in, the same as everyone else, or are they an exempt breed?
The Chair probably clocks in because the Houses of the Oireachtas decided that he should clock in. Perhaps my own Department and office has had some role in that in the past, but in general-----
It certainly has.
------the Oireachtas is responsible for running the Houses of the Oireachtas. We have a role in sanctioning expenses, allowances and so on. However, we will provide the Chair with a detailed note on that issue he has raised about accountability, as well as who is responsible for what. This is because the Ministers and Secretaries Act has been subject to significant amendment. I have been looking into this in detail. We will share that with the committee to assist it in its work.
That system of which the Minister spoke earlier is outdated. It takes no account of the work we do elsewhere. As part of reform, Members of the House do not like to talk about it, because the media gets upset over it. However, I firmly believe that it is time that we show some respect to Members of this House. I do not mind accounting for anything and everything. I believe that that should be the case. However, it is how one does it and who is excluded. We have to work and do our business by example.
That brings us to the end of this part of the meeting. I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their attendance, as well as for the attendance of their officials. I also want to thank both of them for going beyond what was on the agenda in terms of the questions they were asked, and for participating fully in the meeting in an open and transparent way.
For the information of the House, we have concluded our consideration of the Revised Estimates, Votes 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 39 and 43, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform grouping. The clerk of the committee will send a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil, in accordance with Standing Order 101. That has been agreed by the Members.