Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 2013

Vote 19 - Office of the Ombudsman (Revised)

As we now have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No.1 on our agenda is the consideration of the Revised Estimates for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform 2013 Vote group. The Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for the public services be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 11- Public Expenditure and Reform; Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances; Vote 13 - Office of Public Works; Vote 14 - State Laboratory; Vote 15 - Secret Service; Vote 16 - Valuation Office; Vote 17 - Public Appointments Service; Vote 18 - Shared Services; and Vote 19, Office of the Ombudsman.

I welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and his officials to today's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the supplementary performance information regarding the outputs and impacts on the programme expenditure. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. Is that timetable agreed?

It is not agreed. I am opposing any time for the Minister to make an opening statement on the Revised Estimates as presented. The Government, through the Department of the Taoiseach, informed the Opposition parties last week in the Dáil that the 2013 Revised Estimates for public services largely follows the budget day allocations, with the pay deal recommendations by the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, having been programmed into the Department's Estimates. It might have escaped the Minister's attention but the pay deal recommended by the LRC has been rejected by two thirds of public sector workers who were asked by the Minister to vote on it. The pay deal no longer exists and it is an affront to all public servants that the Minister should be in here today while calling for a period of reflection. He has suggested that we must consider the next step while simultaneously ploughing ahead with these Estimates.

I repeat that the memo from the Department of the Taoiseach indicates that the budget day allocation includes the pay deal recommendations by the LRC. Those recommendations have been programmed into the Department's Estimates. I am refusing to discuss any Estimates at this point that include the rejected recommendations of the LRC. I cannot believe that the Minister has gone ahead with the Revised Estimates with the LRC proposals in them. I could understand the Minister coming forward with an overall global figure of what he would like to achieve. It is ironic that this is coming from the Minister who threatened public servants during the critical voting period with across the board pay cuts. Now he is coming here with the LRC recommendations. Why did he ask people to vote if he intended to come in here today with those recommendations in the Estimates? It is ironic that he is in here so quickly.

I am opposing the timetable proposed for today's meeting.

I also object to the taking of this Estimate. The Minister was very prominent in the media, proclaiming to the nation that he was about to run out of money at the end of the year. He has identified a €300 million shortfall in the budget - I know he anticipated that from Croke Park II. As has been said workers were invited to ballot on that matter and they have decisively rejected those proposals. I understand the Government is in reflective mode over the next step, but it is a queer kind of reflection when the Minister goes ahead with the very proposals that have been rejected and hard-wires them into the figures. This is no way to do business. It is certainly no way to treat people working in the public service. It is also no way to treat this Oireachtas. The Minister clearly needs to identify a plan B. If, as he claims, he needs to find an additional €300 million then he needs to establish from where that will come. It cannot come from Croke Park II because in accordance with the democratic process undertaken by the workers through the unions, those proposals have been rejected.

Therefore, I object to the ordering of speaking time for this debate and also to the taking of this Estimate.

Deputy Steven S. Donnelly

I support the views expressed. I understand that the figures to come before us represent approximately €300 million in savings baked into them according to the proposed and now defeated Croke Park II proposal. Clearly that has not been agreed by public sector workers. I would be willing to discuss Estimates which had them taken out of them and would be very much willing to engage in a discussion with the Minister about where that additional saving could be found. However, we know that the Estimates to come before the committee, if they have Croke Park II baked into them, are incorrect. Given that the public sector workers voted against Croke Park II, it would be wrong for us to engage with these numbers, which have the Croke Park II proposal baked into them. I also suggest that we cease this session and discuss how the committee can do some very important work on the Estimates as we see them for this year and not based on a rejected proposal.

The purpose of this meeting is simply to consider the Estimates for my Department and its associated agencies. It is not €300 million, obviously. The pay savings are the apportioned savings we would have expected had the Croke Park II proposals impacted on my Department and the agencies under my purview. In essence, last week I was faced with a decision on whether I should publish the Estimates on the basis of apportioning, as I thought, in a fair way the €300 million of savings that are implied in the budget arithmetic or not publish the Estimates. They are everybody's Estimates. Taking Deputy Fleming's logic, we cannot advance on any Estimate in any Department until we have reached a resolution in regard to the €300 million for this year.

That would be well and good if we had no responsibility. We could approach it as the Republicans did in America and shut down government. However, agencies need to be funded and, for example, the shared service, PeoplePoint, needs a Vote this week to ensure it can continue to function. Ultimately every agency of State - all the ones under my purview - over time will need to have a formal Vote in order to continue in existence. It is extraordinarily reasonable that we would go through the full Estimate of my Department and all the agencies under my remit. If and when we have alternative proposals on the savings in pay and pensions, we will come back and have those approved separately. It is not unusual to have that done.

I understand that some of the Deputies opposite want to grandstand on the particular issue of the Croke Park II proposal, which is an important issue. During the negotiation period, the only utterance I heard from Deputy Fleming was that the €300 million was not sufficiently ambitious and that he wanted €350 million taken out of the public pay bill for this year. I reread his pre-budget submission which detailed how that would be done by the end of March. If we did not have an agreement by the end of March, he laid out, in fairness, the forced measures in regard to the public service for which he would have legislated, as his party did twice when last in government.

I am conscious that we are using up time now. As we will have a debate in plenary session in the Dáil tonight on all these matters, let us park Croke Park II until that forum. Let us now do our normal business for all the agencies that depend on us. We should go through line by line the voted moneys required to fund services within my Department and its associated agencies for this year. When alternatives are determined - if alternatives are determined - for the €300 million, I will come back to the committee seeking approval for that proportion of it that applies to my Department in a timely fashion, as is normal.

I agree with the Minister's logic that we should come back at a later date to discuss the €300 million separately-----

That portion of the €300 million that relates to us.

I will let the Minister respond before I put the question.

I accept we are only dealing with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform today, but it is coincidental that the Minister present is the Minister centrally involved. The same will happen at all the other Oireachtas committees dealing with Estimates in coming weeks. As the Minister has said it would make logical sense to come back with a revision of those figures later. He wants to pass these with the rejected Croke Park II recommendations in them. However, they cannot stand up as the final agreement because they have been rejected. If the Minister believes in democracy, he will accept that and come back with a revision of those figures later. I am saying he should have brought to the committee today the Estimates not including the Croke Park II proposals. He should have dealt with the rest of his Estimate which was not contentious and had not been rejected by the public servants and, as he said, come back at a later date to discuss that element of the €300 million that affects his Department, as he seems willing to do. He should just remove the Croke Park II element from this today.

The Minister is being disingenuous when he says we are just dealing with those elements that affect his Department. Of course we are, but this procedure will be mirrored across all other Oireachtas committees. The total will amount to €300 million as envisaged under Croke Park II - that is what he has accounted for in this Estimate. What is the message to public and civil servants, and their unions? Is this a ruse or is it phase 1 of forcing Croke Park II through even though it has been rejected? Is this the preamble to unilateral action in respect of legislation? That is the question that arises. The Minister sounded the siren bell suggesting that the Government would run out of money and that it had a €300 million gap in its Estimates. Why would he come before the committee to seek approval for these Estimates, knowing that there are gaps within it? That does not make any sense. The politics of this is that the Minister is saying via this committee and other Oireachtas committees to public service workers that they may have rejected the proposal, but the deal - as he calls it - is going ahead anyhow. That is deplorable and is an abuse of this committee and its elected members.

Deputy Steven S. Donnelly

While I understand the Minister's difficult position, it is unreasonable to put it to this committee that the expenditure must be voted on so that services can continue. We are nearly one third of the way through this year and we are now considering expenditure, almost one third of which has, presumably, been incurred. While I may be wrong, I believe Ireland is the only country in the OECD that examines and agrees expenditure one third of the way through. The analysis I have seen suggests we are on our own and in many other countries as in most companies, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate, the expenditure gets agreed before the start of the year.

I am not grandstanding or simply engaging in politics but I honestly believe that to proceed with this in light of the rejection of Croke Park II would be taken as an insult to many of the approximately 300,000 public sector workers. Therefore, I ask that this discussion be postponed, hopefully for a short amount of time. I would welcome a discussion by this committee of how the €300 million could be found. I believe the premise of Croke Park II is incorrect and that the money, or certainly a chunk of it, could be found through non-pay sources. I ask the Chairman, the Minister and my colleagues on the committee to postpone this meeting, because I believe it will be seen as a kick in the teeth by many of the 300,000 public sector workers in the context of Croke Park II.

I accept Deputy Donnelly's bona fides that he does not wish to make a political issue of this. However, we spent the first 20 minutes of the debate on 2% of the Vote, which is the pay changes as they impact on my Department and its agencies. I cannot present a fraudulent Vote. I must apportion where I think the money should be got across the system. I have done that in a reasonable way. If there is a change in that 2%, I will return to the committee. All I have asked is that we go through the normal way of dealing with this.

Deputy Donnelly spoke about the post facto way we do Estimates. That will change this year, as he knows. We had a very good exchange with Deputy Fleming on this on Question Time last week. Under the new two-pack arrangement, we will have the budget on 15 October and all Estimates for next year will be expected to be passed before the end of December this year. That will keep this and all the committees quite busy for the latter part of this year. It is a better system and we are moving to that. However, to date it has always been done this way. We are changing it and have been working on that change for the last two years.

With regard to our business today, I have instanced shared services that will run out of money. That is the pay for people working in the PeoplePoint centre in Clonskeagh, for example. We must be clear that we are continuing the business of providing for public services in the normal way. There is an issue to be resolved with regard to making additional savings of €300 million this year. I made no bones about the requirement for that. I repeatedly said the arithmetic has not changed and I must represent that €300 million across all Votes in some way. Bluntly, had I come to the committee and simply expunged that €300 million, there would be a different row here on a different premise. I ask members to be reasonable about this. Accept that we will deal with the normal Estimates by going through them line by line under all the Votes in the normal way. If and when there is a change in the structure of any element of the Votes, whether it is pay or anything else, we will return in the normal way to seek the approval of the committee and the Dáil for that.

A final comment from Deputy Fleming.

It is not agreed.

The timetable for the meeting that was circulated is: opening statements from the Minister, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, in that order; Vote 11 - Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is allocated 20 minutes; Vote 12 - superannuation and retired allowances is allocated ten minutes; Vote 14 - State Laboratory is allocated ten minutes; Vote 15 - Secret Service is allocated ten minutes; Vote 16 - Valuation Office is allocated ten minutes; Vote 17 - Public Appointments Service is allocated ten minutes; Vote 18 - shared services is allocated ten minutes; Vote 19 - Office of the Ombudsman.

Question put: "That the draft timetable for the meeting, as circulated, be agreed to."
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 3.

  • Harris, Simon.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.

Níl

  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
Question declared carried.

We will now proceed with the draft agenda, as agreed.

I wish to raise a point of order. We have taken a vote to take these Revised Estimates, which include the recommendations of the Labour Relations Commission. The latter were rejected by the public service.

That is not a point of order. The Deputy-----

I cannot participate in proceedings which represent such a grave insult to 300,000 public servants.

The Deputy should be on his feet when he is grandstanding.

The Minister is trying it on in respect of this matter. This is an attempt to strong-arm public service and Civil Service workers and it amounts to giving them the two fingers and turning a deaf ear to their wishes. It comes in the aftermath of all of the threats and bullying to which the Minister subjected them and their representative unions in recent months. I will also not participate in the consideration of an Estimate which contains cuts that have been comprehensively rejected by those workers and their unions. The Minister was part of the process under which those to whom I refer were invited to ballot on the proposed cuts. What is happening here is disgraceful and I am very shocked that the Labour Party, in particular, would facilitate this farce.

I certainly will be participating in this meeting. These Revised Estimates relate to providing the finances necessary to keep the State Laboratory open, to fund the Ombudsman's office and to ensure that other very important public services continue to be available. I am disappointed in the grandstanding on the part of Opposition members.

It is with regret that I, too, will not be participating. The point raised by the Minister and Deputy Kevin Humphreys to the effect that if the Revised Estimates are not agreed, the organisations involved could be shut down is a substantive one. I propose that it would have been preferable to explore whether a ministerial order or legislation could have been used to resolve this issue. I really am of the view that proceeding with our business, in light of the rejection of the Croke Park II proposals, is simply unacceptable. I reiterate that it is with regret that I will not be participating.

Do the Deputies who are leaving want to listen to my reply? Will they at least pay me that courtesy?

That is all right, Minister.

Before the Deputies leave-----

They are not listening. They have left.

As I have stated previously, both at meetings of this committee and in the Dáil, we are trying to get the country out of a hole. Perhaps, therefore, we might park the grandstanding and engage in honest endeavour. I appreciate the Minister's position but I do not agree with everything the Government parties have done. That is a matter of record.

On a serious note and because the financial constraints under which we are operating arose as a result of tradition in the way matters of accounting and the Estimates process are dealt with, as the Minister stated we should try to make the effort to prorate the 2%. The latter may only be a temporary move and the Minister may be required to revisit this issue. Our discussion of the Revised Estimates should proceed. Unfortunately, I must take the Chair in the Dáil at 1.50 p.m. so I will not be present for much of the debate.

That was agreed before the meeting. I thank Deputy Mathews.

I regret that Opposition members have withdrawn from proceedings in what is a political stunt. Let us consider the disastrous situation in which Fianna Fáil left the country. When that party left office, Ireland had a deficit of 32.5% of GDP - the worst in the world. It was not Somalia, South Sudan or Zimbabwe which had this deficit; it was Ireland under the rule of Fianna Fáil.

It was 40% of GNP.

It is quite shocking that Fianna Fáil believes this grandstanding tactic on its part could serve any purpose. We need to ensure that public servants will continue to be paid and that business will proceed as usual. Deputy Donnelly inquired whether I should introduce legislation in order to put matters right. How could I draft and pass legislation? The committee and the Dáil must do their business and discuss and vote on the Estimates. If adjustments are subsequently agreed, either on foot of negotiations or by some other means, then I will be back before the committee. I think my position on this matter is extremely reasonable and fair.

During the short time I have been a Deputy, I have become used to hearing the Opposition Members be critical with regard to the lack of time they are given to consider matters and to hold Ministers to account. They also complain about the power of the Executive. The very function of this meeting is to provide all Deputies with an opportunity to hold the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to account and to scrutinise his spending plans. The fact that the Opposition comprises one party which failed to engage in scrutiny when it was in government - if it had done so, we might not be in the mess in which we find ourselves - and others which prefer to scrutinise matters on the national airwaves rather than in the Parliament is really an indictment of the Opposition rather than of the process.

It is worth noting that what has been announced by the Government in respect of the Croke Park II process shows that concrete progress has been made in a matter of days. For the Opposition to try to derail a process which brings certainty to the public finances is both scurrilous and grandstanding in nature but, I suppose, not atypical.

As Chairperson, I must try to remain impartial in respect of matters of this nature. However, I wish to state for the record that the agenda for this meeting was issued on Thursday last to every Member of the House. It was not possible to take an amendment to it today because if we had done so, the meeting would, by default, have had to be suspended as a result of the requirement to issue notification to members. The position of public servants and their unions on the Croke Park II proposals was well established by Wednesday afternoon last.

Certainly, it was known by Thursday and if any Opposition party or member of the committee, or any member of Government for that matter, wished to put an amendment or notice to the Chair for consideration, it may have been taken on board. However, for the record, there was no notification whatsoever from the Technical Group, Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin with regard to the business to be conducted today or any suggestion of alternatives prior to the commencement of this meeting at 1 p.m.

It is unfortunate that the Opposition is not playing. It has an important role in this democracy to hold the Government to account and to participate in this. It is unfortunate that Deputy Fleming has left. He proposed a reduction of €350 million, which included a reduction in sick leave, including uncertified sick leave; an average cut of 5% in allowances, saving €75 million; a deferral of increments in 2013; and accelerated targeted redundancies. I am committed to public services but he was looking to take more people out rather than provide the necessary public services in hospitals and schools, as well as seeking additional working hours and changes to work practices. We negotiated at the Labour Relations Commission. These were Deputy Fleming's pre-budget proposals but he has now walked out of an Estimates meeting which will be in fact far easier on the public service than what he proposed.

It is worth noting that Sinn Féin dismissed the Croke Park II proposals negotiated at the Labour Relations Commission before any document was published. It participated in the fantasy economics of hitting €100,000 public sector workers. In fact there are only 6,000 such public sector workers and the idea was they alone would pay for the €300 million reduction. We have seen what I believe is the worst in democracy: there is no participation and, in fact, it is almost going back to the old days when there was opposition for opposition's sake. It is not a case of working hard. As Deputy Mathews said, we are in a deep hole and we are all trying to work our way through this but the answer from the Opposition today is to walk away. I am very disappointed.

I am disappointed with the proceedings today, they have been pathetic. What normally happens is that there is a level of political grandstanding. That takes place on the political scene and everyone understands that there is an element of drama and theatrics. However, normally when one comes into these chambers the jackets are taken off, the sleeves are rolled up and we dig deep into the situation that the Government presents and try to find solutions and some costed alternatives. What occurred today was done purely for cameras, for notice, and for political grandstanding reasons. It is the very reason the people have turned away from a connection with the political process and the very reason the people are tired of the political system. It makes the people and those new to these Houses wonder whether we will ever get out of this mess when the best thing some people can hope to get out of today is a headline, a newspaper clip or a piece in "Oireachtas Report" of themselves walking out. There is one party that got us into this mess and another party that does not even have the sense to get its proposals costed. There is someone else who is more interested in writing newspaper columns than finding costed alternatives. It is pathetic and I am embarrassed to be sitting here today as an Irish parliamentarian.

I will take the comments but I am drawing a line under this section of the meeting. There is work at hand to be done this afternoon. I propose that the Minister makes his opening statement and then we can move on with the individual subheads and their associated Votes.

I am glad to have the opportunity to present the 2013 Estimates for my Department's group of Votes. The group comprises a significant number of Votes. In addition to my Department's Vote and a new Vote for shared services, the group contains the Votes for several offices under the aegis of my Department, including the State Laboratory, the Public Appointments Service, the Valuation Office and the Ombudsman's Office. It also contains the Votes for superannuation and retired allowances and for the Secret Service. The Vote for the remaining Office under the aegis of my Department, that of the Office of Public Works, will be taken separately by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes.

Before dealing with the individual Votes in the departmental group I wish to draw the attention of the committee to several general issues. The first issue is the matter of performance budgeting and Dáil oversight. In recent years I have revised the format of the Estimates presented to the committee as part of the implementation of performance budgeting. Under this format the Estimates before the committee and all committees present better information in order that Members, members of the public and decision-makers generally can see at a glance the financial and human resource input costs, the key outputs and the impact factors for each expenditure programme. This is part of the reform to create a more coherent and integrated planning and performance management framework for public expenditure. Within this performance budgeting framework the overarching strategic policy for each Department is set out in its statement of strategy, which explains through clear and integrated key objectives or high-level goals the rationale and purpose for each programme area.

The new Estimates format is designed to expand on this high-level strategic document to provide for each departmental programme a clear presentation of the financial and staffing resources allocated to that area, the main activities undertaken and the key outputs delivered. The intention is to give committees a clear sense of what exactly public funds are being spent on and what is being achieved with that spending. Also included in the Estimates document is a section showing the content and impact indicators. These indicators are intended to give a sense of whether the public service outputs are having a positive impact on citizens and on Irish society in general. This approach brings a streamlining and clarity to a process that was previously spread across several documents and allows Dáil committees to better understand what public service outputs and impacts are being delivered through the expenditure of public funds. In addition, my Department will now be working on expanding the expenditure and performance information contained in the Ireland Stat website, which was successfully piloted during the past year. The content of Ireland Stat will be broadened to capture more information about public services. It already provides details of performance in areas such as job creation, research and development, road and food safety. The feedback from our general consultations has been very positive.

This year's Estimates process continues the important structural reform that is intended to assist the committee in its task of scrutiny and holding the Government to account. Much progress has been made on this front. The challenge over the coming period is to bed down this new way of performance monitoring and reporting and, through the expansion of the Ireland Stat website in particular, to make available up-to-date and easily accessible information on what the public service is delivering on the money we are voting and how well it is doing.

In the context of my broader programme of reform in the area of accountability, performance and Dáil oversight, the committee will be aware that I wrote to the chairs of all the Oireachtas committees in January 2012 to advise them of the new arrangements and the opportunities for greater engagement by public representatives in the Estimates formation process. In the second half of last year meetings took place between Ministers and the relevant Oireachtas committees concerning the prospective Estimates for 2013, framed in the context of the expenditure ceilings set out in the comprehensive expenditure report 2012-2014. This was the first time that there was a systematic process of considering future Estimates matters by the Oireachtas in advance of the Government deciding on its expenditure Estimates to present to the Dáil. The purpose of the exercise was to enable committees to engage with line Ministers and their Departments to exchange views on how the fixed allocations would be apportioned. We knew about the amount of money allocated and we knew the options in the comprehensive review of expenditure and people may have had their own views. That was a new and useful departure.

As the Committee is aware, the hearing in regard to my Department's group of Votes took place last October and I found the exercise useful. Arrangements are in train to ensure that the process becomes further embedded in the work of the various committees this year.

Within the overall framework of recent EU fiscal reforms, I have introduced several improvements to Ireland's budgetary architecture since taking office. These measures are designed to improve the management of public resources and to ensure public funds are used effectively in a transparent manner. The Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill was published late last year and, when enacted, will give legal standing to the existing multi-annual departmental ceilings. This legislation will anchor other reforms to multi-annual budgeting and will allow for sensible, structural planning and prioritisation within each area of public expenditure, encompassing full public input and parliamentary oversight, while affording Government the flexibility to ensure that the appropriate fiscal stance is taken.

Naturally, my Department is not simply focused on ensuring that Government meets its public expenditure targets, although these are important; it is keenly aware of the need to achieve value for money in public expenditure as well.

The new public spending code, which was developed last year, sets out the rules and procedures underpinning value for money, bringing together in one document an updated guide to value for money best practice. The code aims to ensure both current and capital expenditure are subject to rigorous value for money appraisal in advance of public moneys being spent and, where programmes are already advanced, that they too are subject to interim assessment and evaluation. I envisage that committees will be presented with these assessments in due course to aid the former's work in scrutinising departmental allocations and to contribute to their new role in engaging in the Estimates deliberations at an earlier stage.

In order to enhance the economic and evaluative capacity of the Civil Service, which is a matter on which many people commented recently, the Government has established the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES. Under the stewardship of my Department, specialist economic and evaluation staff were recruited into the new service last year. They are actively engaged in policy work. The service will support enhanced policy analysis across the Civil Service with the new expertise being shared among Departments as requested. Many of my colleagues are interested in having specialist economic evaluators working in line Departments. We are also strengthening our ties with policy experts outside the service, for example, the ESRI, universities and similar government economic units in other jurisdictions.

The type of work involved is illustrated by the analytical papers contained in the 2013 expenditure report, published last December. These concerned, respectively, the reduction of public expenditure on legal services, the expenditure impacts of climate change and the implications of demography for spending in the education field out to 2030. More assessments are under way and I am committed to publishing them. The papers are designed to provide sharper, more focused assessments of specific policy issues to help inform the Government when it is making policy decisions.

Turning to the details of my Department's Vote, the committee will have noted that it comprises two main programmes, namely, public expenditure and sectoral policy and public service management and reform. The first programme has a focus on the promotion of value for money and performance information and the implementation of policies to reduce public service numbers. It also includes the management of EU co-funded structural programmes and the fostering of North-South economic co-operation. The second programme is focused on the delivery of public service reform in line with the programme for Government and the public service reform plan, which I published in 2011. The implementation of ICT and e-Government programmes and the development of policies to minimise the public service pay bill and maintain industrial relations stability in the public service also form part of the overarching Vote.

I draw the committee's attention to the fact that my Department's Estimate for this year involves a net funding allocation of €36.364 million compared with €37.1 million last year. In effect, expenditure will be maintained at broadly 2012 levels despite additional funding requirements in light of, for example, the tendering of the national lottery and additional expenditure on essential IT upgrades required to support Government networks. These have been funded within existing resources. Similarly, employee numbers have been maintained at 2012 levels while additional services and reform objectives have been delivered.

On this aspect, I wish to outline a number of initiatives that have been taken by my Department. The committee will have noted the presence in the public expenditure and reform group of Votes of a new Vote, which I mentioned in our discussion on the timing of today's debate. I am referring to Vote 18 - Shared Services. This new Vote has been created to support the Civil Service shared services programme set out in the reform plan. My Department established this Vote in January to support the significant progress being made in shared services across central government. Prior to this, the expenditure allocation was contained in my Department's own Vote. The gross Estimate for this Vote amounts to €21 million this year, which covers the initial implementation stage for the HR and pensions shared service centre, which will see the transition of 14 Departments this year and a total of 40 Departments and offices before the end of next year. The Estimate also contains provision for the initial implementation stages of a payroll shared services centre and a further shared service - financial management and banking - is under consideration. It is envisaged that shared services in the HR, pensions and payroll areas will, in time, generate time savings of up to €20 million per annum.

I also draw the committee's attention to the work of my Department in respect of procurement reform. In line with the recommendations of the Accenture report that I commissioned last year, entitled "Capacity and Capability Review of Central Procurement Function", an experienced chief procurement officer, CPO, was recruited into my Department and took up his appointment in late January of this year. The CPO is charged with leading reform of the central procurement function and will be accountable for national procurement strategy, all aspects of procurement policy, including EU and national procurement law, and the implementation and the establishment of an effective compliance framework.

Since the CPO's appointment, he has engaged extensively with key stakeholders across the public sector and has developed a plan for Government consideration. The plan sets out ambitious but achievable targets for migration to a new and more centralised model for procurement across the public service, for significant savings to be achieved and for new governance structures for oversight to be introduced. As I mentioned last year, we discovered when we drilled down that many State agencies and Departments were buying the same product from the same supplier at different prices. There is significant scope for improvement. The new procurement office that the CPO will establish will be a separate body under the aegis of my Department. The procurement reform plan was considered by the Government today. My proposals were adopted and I will make public comment on them later today.

In addition, officials from my Department are taking a leading role in the development of a number of procurement directives at EU level. These directives are aimed in the main at the following: streamlining procurement procedures and increasing flexibility; increasing the scope for consideration of environmental and social objectives, including local employment and recruitment for significant projects, an issue that many people are concerned about; and improving procedures and governance. The goal of the Irish Presidency is to achieve a first reading agreement with the European Parliament on all three proposed public procurement directives by the end of June.

As well as these new initiatives, my Department has been heavily involved in one of the key issues facing the Government. The Government is committed to delivering the pay savings as set out in the EU-IMF programme of financial support. Continued reductions in public service numbers in line with Government policy will go a considerable way towards achieving these savings. Significant progress has already been made in that regard.

The end of 2012 returns show that serving numbers in the public service were 290,800, some 30,000 below 2008 levels. The Government is committed to reducing public service numbers further by 2015 to below 282,500. To this end, a ceiling of 287,000 has been set for the end of this year, which represents a reduction of some 3,400 from the end of last year.

Delivering a leaner, more efficient public service is a key feature of my public service reform programme. The timeframe under which we are doing this is challenging. There will be pressures, but the Government is clear that front-line services will be protected and that we can deliver on this target by continuing to focus on improving systems and procedures, by making better use of shared services and by restructuring operations to deliver more efficient services. In that regard, my Department is active in the workforce planning area, with the objective of helping organisations to deploy staffing resources more optimally in the context of the planned reduction to which I have referred. It is an interesting matter. I have also met the CEOs of a number of State agencies. While I will not identify the one with whom I spoke this week, that person mentioned the value of being able to redeploy people to the areas of most need from those areas that were overstaffed. This valuable tool has been utilised across the public service in recent times.

The challenge for each sector is to manage the reduction in staffing levels while maintaining a high level of service delivery to clients and policy support to the Government. The bulk of the reduction in staff numbers is being achieved by a combination of the non-replacement of staff leaving under natural retirement and a moratorium on the filling of posts by way of recruitment or promotion. I am conscious of the fact that this has become a pressure point in some areas that need to be renewed. I hope to give detailed consideration to this matter and would welcome members' opinions in this regard.

I thank the Minister and we can now go through the-----

Will I take the rest as read?

Will the Minister do so? I am sure there will be enough questions. I will deal with subhead 1, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances. Are there any questions or comments on it? If not, I will move to subhead 2, which deals with travel and subsistence. Are there any comments or questions on it?

Could we ask one or two general questions about the Minister's presentation?

We should go through the formal process but I can accommodate the Deputy. We are dealing with Vote 11, Public Expenditure and Reform. The briefing from the Department is dealing with subheads 1 to 8.

I have some general questions arising from the Minister's presentation. I may be jumping on a bit as the issue relates to Vote 18, shared services.

The Deputy is way ahead of me.

We will get there.

It arises directly from the Minister's presentation as opposed to a particular Vote. The target is €20 million for the area but how many years is that, and when will we see savings? Have we laid down targets for local employment with regard to procurement reforms?

With regard to the Public Expenditure and Reform subheads 1 to 8, I feel like I must do the job of the Opposition for them. Consultancy fees have increased quite significantly as detailed by subhead 7. Why was there a 300% increase in consultancy fees?

With the outturn cost on consultancy, we put in a notional €5,000 last year but we did not spend any money. It is a token sum. We have put in an Estimate this year of €20,000 so it looks like a huge increase, percentage-wise, but the figures are tiny. It is an anchor in case we need consultants during the year. In the documentation, the only cost we envisage relates to the value for money and the policy review under way. It is a very small sum of money overall.

What is the sum?

It is €20,000.

That equates to a 300% increase.

Yes. The sum was only €5,000 last year.

A significant reduction in expenditure going into 2013 is the issue of leases in office premises and expenses. The figure is down by 37%. Is that because of the ability to be able to acquire cheaper properties or have leases come to an end? Has some flexibility been found in upward only rent reviews so that rent can be reduced?

It is primarily because of leases coming to an end. Within the Department there is an overview of all State property and, unfortunately, bad decisions were made, particularly around the time decentralisation was topical. In some cases long-term leases were taken. Where we can get out of leases not fit for purpose and where we can amalgamate or transfer facilities, we are doing that on a structured basis. To answer the Chairman's question, the decrease is down to taking advantage of expiring leases.

My next question relates to office machinery and supplies. As somebody who worked in the public sector, I know there was a great chestnut that came in the first week of September when my line manager would send me a note telling me €5,000 had to be spent before 31 December. In my case, it would often go to buying IT equipment which would be cheaper at any other time of the year. Christmas has always been the most expensive time to buy IT equipment and if I could wait until January, I could achieve a cheaper purchase.

Is reform envisaged in such operations that will allow purchases to go into January? What sort of flexibility in the budget would allow this? Local authorities, VECs and others buy equipment at the end of the year but it is the worst time of the year to do so. Conversely, the money may just be used because the same amount would not be allocated the following year if money remained in the budget.

The money is to be used for the new document management system but the Chairman is making a general point on the old regime, where people felt they had to spend money or lose it. That is gone, as we now have a multi-annual funding system. That used to apply only to the capital side but I have migrated it to the current side as well, so there is now a three year envelope of money where unspent funding can be carried over in order to get better value. Purchasing can be targeted to the right time of year if there is an advantage to it.

On that basis, there is a carry-over of €680,000 from 2012, with a carry-over of €207,000 from 2011 to 2012.

We have a new administrative budget arrangement and there is a possibility of carrying over funding when we postpone issues. That should now be manifest across all votes.

It is the type of carry-over we are seeing in procurement and other matters like that. There is a flexibility so there is no rash spending at the end of the year.

Although it is not in my own Vote area, I remember visiting a school on one occasion that was due to be replaced by a new school building which had been approved next to the school site. As there was an allocation of money to the Department, a new wiring system was installed in the school that was to be demolished, which was extraordinarily wasteful. The multi-annual envelope of money process seeks to end such wasteful expenditure.

Will the figure grow year on year?

We do not encourage people to do it unless there is a compelling reason. There is a limit. For example, in the capital budget there will be a percentage of carry-over but we need to have a capital spend because that generates jobs. When we set out to build a certain number of schools, health centres, hospitals, etc. - none of which is germane to my budget - we expect the money to be spent largely in the year. If there are technical, planning or other reasons for funding to roll over, that can be accommodated in a multi-annual framework.

I have gone through subheads 1 and 2. Are there comments or questions on subhead 3, dealing with incidental expenses? It seems not. Subhead 4 deals with postal and telecommunications services. Is that agreed? Agreed. Subhead 5 deals with office machinery and supplies. Is it agreed? Agreed. Subhead 6 deals with office premises and expenses. Is it agreed? Agreed. Subhead 7 deals with consultancy services. Is it agreed? Agreed. Subhead 8 deals with the EU Presidency. Is it agreed? Agreed.

I will move to programme A, dealing with public expenditure and sectoral policy. Subhead A3 deals with the Economic and Social Research Institute general expenses grant-in-aid. Is it agreed? Agreed. Are there comments or questions on Structural Funds, technical assistance and any other costs? No. Subhead A5 deals with technical assistance costs of regional assemblies grant-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions?

I want to say a couple of words about EU Structural Funds. I have had discussions yesterday with Commissioner Hahn regarding the new multi-annual financial framework being discussed in a co-decision model with the European Parliament. We are anxious to get the Structural Funds agreed so we can implement national policies from 1 January 2014. We operate through two regional bodies, a south and east structure and a Border, midlands and west structure. In view of the time slot within which the new round of moneys was predicated, there was a reduction in the amount of money available to the Border-midlands-west and I and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach were very anxious that this would be addressed. An additional sum of €100 million was provided in the MFF for the Border-midlands-west. This means that overall, despite a reduction in the amount of money for Structural Funds across the Union, Ireland will have a slight increase. The moneys that were voted here are to maintain the existing structure. We will have to look to next year when the new round comes in. We will debate what new structures should be in place to monitor the next round of Structural Funds after the budget in October.

Subhead A6, deals with the peace programme Northern Ireland INTERREG. Are there any comments or questions?

Again, we are very anxious to have a PEACE IV programme. This is difficult because it is a joint programme. The bid is made jointly with the United Kingdom, in terms of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and there was a strong view by the British authorities that they wanted to decrease the overall envelope of expenditure within the Union so they did not want to ask overtly for an additional allocation. I have recently engaged in extensive dialogue with members of the British Government about that and I am very glad that there will be a PEACE IV programme. It is very important in terms of North-South co-operation. There are still residual issues that need to be addressed in bedding down peace. We cannot take that for granted. The programme to date has been hugely successful in terms of bedding down the peace in communities. One of the initiatives taken by the EU Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn, was to consider a number of projects in Brussels and I made a presentation there. I was very privileged to be there. Also in attendance were the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. The peace funding is administered by the Special EU Programme Body, SEUPB, and that is the funding we have provided for here. It has 62 staff and they monitor the programmes. They have done a very good job to date.

Will we see a reduction in funding? In the Minister's Estimates is there also a knock-on from the UK funding for the Border counties? Are we seeing an equal reduction across the board?

Yes. The PEACE IV programme is funded by a significant proportion from the European Commission, then from the MFF to which I referred, and that is augmented by a contribution from both the United Kingdom and Ireland. The SEUPB is proportionately on the same basis funded by the three parties.

Has that already been signed off by the Northern Assembly and the UK Government?

I do not know. I will check that and come back.

Subhead A8 deals with Ireland/Wales transnational INTERREG, and that has been referred to.

There are two INTERREG programmes. There is the North-South that links into Scotland and there is a maritime INTERREG that links Ireland and Wales. A number of important initiatives on the east and south coasts in particular, but migrating a good bit inland, have been funded on that basis.

Subhead A9 deals with procurement management reform. The Minister dealt with this in his opening statement along with the consultancy and other costs.

It seems to be quite substantial. It is related to the national lottery.

The national lottery is the biggest endeavour in terms of money in which we are involved. We have taken extensive advice to get this right because it is important. We are tendering for a 20-year licence. The legislation has been passed by the Dáil and is to go before the Seanad shortly. That will enable us to tender for the new licensing arrangement. It is important we have the right market advice, that we get the best value but also that we have very competent people to run the lotto and that we maintain the confidence in the lotto that has made such a success of it. It has provided billions of euro for good causes over its lifetime to date and we must ensure that continues into the future.

Who is providing the market advice?

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Programme B, Public Service Management and Reform, subhead B3, Institute of Public Administration grant-in-aid, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B4, Gaeleagras na Seirbhíse Poibli, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B5, Civil Service arbitration and appeals procedure, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B6, Civil Service child care initiative, are there any comments or questions? Could the Minister expand on that?

It is a small sum of money that is part of the family-friendly supports that are provided by the public service to its members. I said in the context of the discussions on the new wage proposals that we have among the best pro-family arrangements for employees anywhere in employment in Ireland. It is only €10,000 in the Estimates and the budget covers the cost of audit and policy work related to the programme across the public service.

On subhead B7, consultancy and related costs, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B8, Centre for Management and Organisation Development, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B9, reform agenda, are there any comments or questions? The Minister referred to subhead B10, employee assistance officer shared service, earlier in his comments. I note on page 29 there is a 12.5% decrease in expenditure in 2013 over 2012. Is that because the purpose of this in terms of getting joint services going is to reduce costs in the first instance? Is this a reduction in the costs as a result of the joint services or is it a result of the costs of the structure of the joint services?

We have not got the benefit of it yet because we are only bedding in the shared service but these are vacancies we are not filling. It is a head-count reduction. The shared services programme is a very important one for a number of reasons. We will do more with fewer bodies. We will save in payroll but we will also have a much more integrated and efficient system.

We have done it in terms of human resource management. We are looking at financial services. We will have a much more integrated payroll system, which will be centralised in three centres as opposed to the multiplicity of centres that are currently handling public sector payroll. Procurement will be better centralised as well.

The employee assistance schemes are excellent. They also work throughout the private sector. The confidentiality element is one the most important for staff who access this service. Is that service provided within the system or is it bought in?

The human resources service is an in-house service run by seconded staff. They are now being centralised into one unit, which, by and large, we had done anyway. They are all civil servants and confidentiality will remain. There are a number of portals of access. It is interesting that since PeoplePoint went live only a short number of weeks ago, it has been well used both via e-mail and telephone access. It will be a significant success.

The next subhead is B11, statute law revision and programme.

Statute law revision is a programme we are undertaking to modernise the legal framework of the State. It is not at all sexy but it is a significant body of work that was originally undertaken by the Attorney General's office but has since migrated to my Department. It is a useful clean up of the Statute Book.

Subhead B12, Referendum Commission. It was not deemed to be sexy at all, to use the Minister's word, but it is becoming quite sexy at the moment. Is there a sunset clause for the commission or will budgetary adjustments arise, for instance, if the same-sex marriage proposal is acted on by Government? That would require a constitutional referendum budget and will remain as a budget subhead if constitutional issues require it. Is that correct?

No, the way it works is that the sponsoring Department carries the cost. This subhead covers the residual cost of the referendum we held in 2011. If, for example, a referendum was sponsored by the Department of Justice and Equality along the lines referred to by the Chairman, that subhead would be carried in the justice Vote.

If there is a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, what Department will carry that?

The Taoiseach's.

How long does it take the run down the cost of a referendum commission?

This will be the end of it. There will be no more funding for that referendum. Sometimes bills come in late. There are various reasons for that.

There has been talk in the past of establishing a referendum commission on a permanent basis. Has consideration been given to that?

That is not in my Department's purview and, therefore, I better not comment on it.

It is not the Minister's view?

It is not in my purview. We seem to be in an era of many referenda and it would be a good idea to have a permanent commission because a certain expertise is required. I previously informed the Joint Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform about the work my Department did following this referendum. The Government lost it and we did a great deal of analysis as to why. It will be instructive in structuring the information campaign for future referenda.

I refer to the €400,000 reduction in appropriations-in-aid, which covers receipts from the Department in respect of foreign language classes, EU programmes, pension surpluses and so on.

That is the way it is. Those receipts are debased.

What do those receipts cover? Is it public servants getting foreign language classes, for example, French, if they have to go to Brussels?

The main reduction relates to the co-funding of the PEACE initiative. Language training used to be available but I am afraid, as part of the requirements of the time, that centre has been shut.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs and targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

We move to Vote 12. The allocation under subhead A6, injury grants and medical fees, has increased by 67%. Is this for compensation awards?

By its nature, this is difficult to estimate year on year and it is considered prudent to retain the allocation at the same level as last year, although the output was not taken up. It is prudent budgeting.

Does it cover liabilities in terms of injury compensation?

One does not know what will arise in a year. We are providing the same amount as we did in last year's Estimates. The fact that we spent less last year was good and, hopefully, we will spend less this year but we are determined to be prudent in the amount we provide.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

We move to Vote 14. Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed.

Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.
Are there any comments or questions on Vote 15 - Secret Service? Perhaps the Minister would tell us about this Vote.

Deputy Brendan Howln

Everybody asks about this Vote. It is simply a provision that is made. It used to be held in the Department of Finance but now it is held in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. On occasion I get warrants from either the Minister for Justice and Equality or the Minister for Defence for the sanctioning of payments for purposes to be approved of by the Minister for Justice and Equality or the Minister for Defence in each case. I do not have the detail of how the money is expended. The normal thing is that we do not speak about these things. However, a previous Minister for Justice indicated that it was for the use of the Garda in intelligence work.

A heading such as "oversight" appears and the money is spent, in full, on a regular basis. One wonders whether it is because there is €1 million, there is an endeavour to try to spend it all. What kind of oversight is there to ensure the money is spent on the programme for which it is provided?

As the Deputy can see, the service is audited in the normal way by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister for Justice and Equality or the Minister for Defence, as appropriate, must be satisfied that the money is required. In essence, I do not look behind his request.

Does it come under the remit of the Committee of Public Accounts?

Has it ever appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts?

The Committee of Public Accounts normally accepts the general opaqueness of the spending. Is that an appropriate response?

It is not that we are seeking oversight of it but is there somebody who has oversight?

The Minister for Defence or the Minister for Justice and Equality, as appropriate, in essence approves the availability of moneys for ensuring that normal police work, by and large, is carried out and whether a payment needs to be made to an individual to ensure normal police work is effective.

I am just looking at Minister's Department. It comes under the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. The sum appears to be a sum of €1 million every year.

It is a standing sum.

It is indicating a 94% increase.

That is just on the outturn.

It might indicate that the types of bribes were cheaper during a recession but they may be increasing again.

Maybe Croke Park impacts in curious ways.

If there are no further questions or comments on this Vote, we shall move on. Vote 16 is the Valuation Office. Programme A is provision of a State valuation service and the administrative subheads are A1 to A4. On subhead A1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2, administration - non-pay, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(ii), travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iii), training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iv), postal and telecommunications services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(v), office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(vi), office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(vii), consultancy and value for money and policy reviews, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A3, fees to counsel and other legal expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A4, national revaluation projects, are there any comments or questions?

The general theme is that the amounts for each has increased. Perhaps the Minister will explain.

We can go through each one individually. For example, as can be seen from the explanation of office equipment and external IT services, this subhead provides for the ongoing development of ICT and geographic information systems in the Valuation Office. We are doing a huge amount of work. All of this relates to the Valuation Office. New legislation is going through the House. Much revaluation is taking place and we are providing sound systems, for example, in IT and so on. Therefore, there is an increase in the sums available for office equipment and external IT services.

The increase in office premises expenses was, I understand, for repairs needed which were not carried out in 2012, as expected, but are carried over to this year. The amount for fees to counsel is a token figure and is the same amount as for last year. We did not spend any money on counsel. It is clear that the outturn figure of €73,000 compared to zilch is a 100% increase but is exactly the same as the provision last year. Most of the subheads are reduced compared with the original 2012 voted figure.

It is an increase of 19% on the overall Vote.

As I said, a new valuation Bill is going through the House, on which there are ongoing discussions. Clearly many people have an interest in the whole valuation of property. A revaluation is ongoing and the increase is almost entirely related to that.

How does that reflect on local authorities?

It does not reflect on local authorities.

I am not talking about the valuation of rates. It is a separate valuation.

It is the rates and they get the benefit of it. In terms of the valuation of property, the Valuation Office undertakes that work. We are looking at how that is done. By general agreement, the revaluation process is extraordinarily slow. In the new legislation we are looking at ways of advancing the process, including some self-assessment that can be verified. That is part of the legislative programme. In the meantime, we are progressing as quickly as possible with the standard revaluation that is under way.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Under programme A, are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed. Programme B is administration services for the valuation tribunal. On subhead B1, administration - pay, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B2, valuation tribunal programme, are there any comments or questions? Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed. On appropriations-in-aid, are there any comments or questions? On revised public service numbers policy, are there any comments or questions?

Vote 17 is the Public Appointments Service. On subhead A1, administration - pay, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2, administration - non-pay, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(ii), travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iii), training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iv), postal and telecommunications services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(v), office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(vi), office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions?

As one can see the Estimate is down considerably in terms of office premises expenses.

I think it is down 37%.

Yes, and one can see the note on it.

I will continue to list the subheads. On subhead A2(vii), recruitment costs - research and corporate governance, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(viii), recruitment costs - advertising and testing, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(ix), recruitment costs - interview boards, are there any comments or questions? On appropriations-in-aid, are there any comments or questions? On the pension levy, are there any comments or questions?

Under subhead B, appropriations-in-aid, there is a deduction of 79% in 2013 over 2012. This reduction in appropriations-in-aid is due to technical accounting in respect of moneys due from other Departments and offices and, as such, does not represent an actual fall in income.

Perhaps the Minister could provide an addition on that.

Simply, it does not mean that there is a fall in income. It is moneys due yet to be paid.

I thank the Minister.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs and targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Vote 18, shared services, pages 81 to 88, inclusive, of the briefing from the Department refers. On subhead A1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(ii), travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iii), training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(iv), postal and telecommunication services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(v), office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2(vi), office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions? On Programme A, are there any comments or questions? Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Programme B, other shared services, are there any comments or questions? Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Vote 19, Office of the Ombudsman, subheads A1 to A9, pages 90 to 102, inclusive, of the briefing from the Department refers. On Programme A, Office of the Ombudsman, subhead A1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions?

The committee will know, subsequent to the enactment of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012, that the remit of the Ombudsman has been greatly extended. That has been managed by the Ombudsman in a controlled way and there is not an enormous increase in funding for the enormous volume of additional oversight that will arise.

More by way of comment than anything else, on the basis that there is an additional 140 bodies coming under the Ombudsman, the increase is quite minor. Obviously, there has been quite an amount of work done in this area. As the office is so important, I would support the changes there.

Not only has the office been given a significant range of new powers and a new range of bodies to oversee, but it now has been given a direct portal of reporting into the Dáil through the Joint Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions. In the past, there have been situations where reports of the Ombudsman were not acted upon or did not even get a platform to be debated. That has given the Ombudsman's office a new status in recent times and it is an important one.

I should also state that the Ombudsman's office worked closely with my office in the drafting and advancing of that legislation and an interesting initiative was taken in that an officer of the Office of the Ombudsman was seconded to my Department to work on the legislation until it was enacted.

On subhead A1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A2, travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A3, training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A4, postal and telecommunication services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A5, office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A6, office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A7, consultancy services and value for money and policy reviews, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A8, legal fees, are there any comments or questions? Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Programme B, Standards in Public Office Commission, subhead B1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B2, travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A3, training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A4, postal and telecommunication services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A5, office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions?

Is there a substantial increase in subhead B3?

The sum is relatively small. The provision in the Estimates is €104,000. The provision last year was €114,000. It is less than was provided. The outturn figure was only €75,000. If one compares the outturn figure to the revised estimate, it looks as if it is a significant increase but it is a significant reduction on what was provided last year.

Where was I?

There are approximately 20 subhead B7s in this document. I am trying to find out what programme. It was the Standards in Public Office Commission, was it not?

On subhead B8, legal fees, are there any comments or questions? Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On Programme C, Office of the Information Commissioner-Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information, subhead C1, salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C2, travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C3, training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C4, postal and telecommunication services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C5, office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C6, office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C7, consultancy services and value for money and policy reviews, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C8, legal fees, are there any comments or questions?

I should comment on subhead C8, the significant increase in legal fees. It goes up, from the voted figure last year of €178,000 to €230,000. There is an entirely new focus on environmental information. I was certainly of the view that it is an area on which the Information Commissioner needs robust legal opinion and legal support because there will be more appeals on environmental information grounds. I acceded to the request. It looks like a significant increase, certainly on the outturn figure for last year.

On subhead C7, consultancy services and value for money and policy reviews, the 2012 estimate was €43,000. The 2012 outturn was €8,000. The 2013 estimate is €19,000. There is a difference of €19,000. In the first year, we seem to have had a big headline figure. In the estimate, there is a big headline figure. In the output, it is less than a quarter of that. We are now back to a position where it was one half of the initial estimate.

In real terms, it all is small sums. This is consultancy services and value-for-money and policy reviews to be undertaken by the Information Commissioner. We provided €43,000 last year. We are providing less than one half of that this year, €19,000, because, thankfully, it was not expended. In terms of consultancy services that might be of use to the Information Commissioner, €19,000 is a reasonable allocation. It is less than one half of last year's vote.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 output targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister and his officials for assisting the committee with its consideration of the Revised Estimates and programme. As we have completed our consideration of Revised Estimates for Votes 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, the clerk to the committee will send a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil in accordance with Standing Order 87. Under Standing Order 86(2), the message is deemed to be the report of the committee.

Sitting suspended at 2.50 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.

We will now consider the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Revised Estimates 2013 for the Office of Public Works. The Dáil has ordered that the following Revised Estimate for public services be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 13 - Office of Public Works.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, and his officials. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimate and supplementary performance information regarding outputs and impacts of the expenditure programme. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I call on the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our Estimates for this year. I welcome my colleagues from the Office of Public Works who have joined me for this presentation.

Before I refer to some of the key elements of the 2013 Estimate I will bring the committee up-to-date, as I did last year, on some of the areas where the OPW is a key driver in the Government's public sector reform agenda. The public sector, not unlike the OPW, carries out myriad functions and is spread throughout the country. The OPW has for years performed as a catch-all organisation for a vast array of public service activities. Flood risk management, property management and maintenance, heritage services and procurement all form key parts of the ambit of our office. In essence, these are all forms of shared services provided to the wider public service or directly to the public at large. In this respect the OPW is well-positioned to be one of the central drivers of the reform agenda.

The Office of Public Works is the lead agency and actively engaged in two main areas of reform set by Government, procurement reform, which is soon to be devolved to the new office of Government procurement, and property asset management, where the Chairman of OPW is the senior responsible owner for this aspect of public service reform.

The reform of public procurement is a critical element of the Government's public service reform plan. Procurement of supplies and services accounts for approximately €9 billion of current expenditure by the State per annum. This represents a significant portion of overall spending and it is, therefore, essential that the public service avails of the maximum value-for-money and operational efficiency in its approach to public procurement. In 2012, an external review of the central procurement function was commissioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The report of the review, which was published in September last, found that significant savings could be achieved through the implementation of a transformational change to the central procurement model. Last year on foot of the findings of the report the Government agreed to a range of actions for the reform of the central procurement function, including the appointment of a chief procurement officer, CPO, Mr. Paul Quinn, and the establishment of the office of Government procurement. This new approach to public procurement will involve: integrating procurement policy, strategy and sourcing in one office; strengthening spend analytics and data management; greater aggregation of purchasing across public bodies to achieve better value-for-money and lower administrative overheads; examining the specifications set out for goods and services; evaluating demand levels to assess how demand and volume can be reduced; and strengthening supplier and category management.

One concern of this committee in the past was the possible restriction of opportunities to small suppliers under the new arrangements. The office of Government procurement will continue to engage with the small and medium-sized enterprise sector in this regard and in the past two years several significant steps have been taken to improve SME access to public procurement. Seminars and workshops have been held and in excess of 4,500 SMEs have been hosted to help demonstrate the procurement process. The National Procurement Service has established an industry collaborative working group involving major business representative groups and the various public sector groupings. The working group aims to identify the challenges for SMEs when transacting business with the public service and, most importantly, to come up with practical solutions to these challenges.

The question of property is a key part of the work of the Office of Public Works. We are also leading the way with reform in this area. The number of staff in the public service will fall by approximately 40,000 by the end of next year, 2014, and this creates an opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of office accommodation, which is one of central government's greatest administrative overheads after pay and pensions. OPW has already made progress in this area and departmental rents have fallen from €130 million to €107 million in the period from 2008 to 2012. Coupled with further organisational rationalisations, such as shared services and the abolition of agencies, this will continue to facilitate further reductions in the amount of accommodation required by the public service. As a leader of this area of reform the OPW is taking a whole-of-government perspective on how best to manage public service property to ensure optimal value-for-money is achieved.

The Chairman of the OPW is finalising a property management plan currently and I hope to be in a position to present it to Government shortly. One critical element of the plan is to progress the development of a map-based public service property inventory. This issue has also been raised by this committee in the past.

In my brief as Minister of State with special responsibility for public service reform I am taking the lead on shared services and Ireland Stat, two crucial areas of public sector reform. As Deputies are aware, the Government considers the implementation of shared services to be a key enabler to reduce the cost and labour intensity of back-office support functions in the public sector. Significant progress has been made in establishing a human resources and pensions shared services centre for the Civil Service and the first Departments and offices have recently moved to the new service. A business case for payroll shared services will be presented to Government shortly and work is under way evaluating the suitability of our financial management and banking functions for shared services. The publication of the OPW Estimate today shows the maintenance of State accommodation being centralised on the OPW vote. The rationalisation of this service will produce savings, directly by the OPW prioritising the operation of planned and preventative maintenance and indirectly on staffing in Departments in off-loading their property maintenance responsibilities.

Ireland Stat is a new whole-of-government performance measurement system, currently in pilot mode, which aims to meet those commitments and to answer the question of how Ireland is doing in a range of areas. A key commitment in this e-Government area is to ensure that data held by public bodies is made available and easily accessible online for reuse and redistribution.

The 2013 Estimates process we are engaged in today is yet another example of reform.

The Government is committed to being transparent, accountable and efficient in the provision and consumption of Government funding. In addition, this reform will see the budget for 2014 brought forward to October of this year, thereby allowing greater opportunity to consider and plan for the 2014 expenditure commitments. Before members today, the Office of Public Works, OPW, having been involved in the pilot of this performance budgeting process, is presenting a clear plan for expenditure in 2013 with a summary review of what was achieved in 2012 with the funding provided. 2013 will be a critical year in terms of delivering on OPW objectives, the thrust of which was set out in my appearance before this sub-committee last October. Given the timing of this appearance, it must be acknowledged that resources allocation for the current year is already well established, with 94% of this year's capital allocation and more than half of the 2014 allocation contractually committed at this stage. Capital unitary payments for the convention centre in Dublin, flood relief projects and building works to maintain the fabric of buildings and deal with the ongoing office rationalisation programme will absorb the medium-term OPW capital allocation.

On the current side, wage payments for the 1,700 permanent staff, unitary payment commitments and contractual commitments for rent on buildings occupied by Departments account for the most part of the 2013 allocation. The remaining allocation will be required to fund property maintenance, drainage maintenance and the heritage service programme, which is a critical component in the Government's efforts to revive and develop the tourism sector.

The most significant part in monetary terms of the 2013 allocation is €70 million on the flood risk management programme. I expect members to welcome the fact that the Government and the OPW have prioritised this area of funding to ensure greater protection is provided to the public. The capital part of the allocation, which is largely committed for the coming years, will allow for the provision of both major schemes and the continuation of a highly successful scheme of minor protection works through local authorities. Major schemes to be advanced in 2013 include Waterford, Carlow, Bray, Fermoy, Mallow, Ennis and Clonmel. Further funding will be provided to local authorities in 2013 to progress minor works schemes in addition to the €21.6 million that has been provided to local authorities since 2009 in respect of 402 approved projects. The 2013 allocation also will allow for the continuation of the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme of studies. This important programme involves detailed assessment of the most significant flood risk areas nationally and based on these assessments, the development of a prioritised set of options to manage that risk in the future.

I am pleased to announce the Government has provided the additional investment required to expand on the successful Optimising Power at Work campaign, which now is achieving savings in excess of €4 million per annum across Departments. The new energy conservation initiative will broaden its scope from such Departments to target initially 500 large buildings from various public sector organisations. My office will lead a campaign to achieve ambitious saving targets of up to 18% of consumption within three years. While my office will lead the campaign, the service requirement will be outsourced in the main, thereby providing approximately 25 high-quality employment opportunities for suitably qualified specialists from various disciplines.

I hope I have given a flavour of the commitment the OPW and its staff demonstrate to me on a daily basis while playing their part in reforming public services and have assured the sub-committee that the funding to be approved today will be put to the best possible use in the furtherance of reform objectives. I obviously will be glad to answer any questions from the Chairman and members.

I thank the Minister of State. As members commence the business of taking the Votes, I note no Opposition opening spokespersons are presenting and will move on to Vote 13, Office of Public Works. Are there comments or questions on programme A, flood risk assessment, subheads A1 and A2, administration, pay and non-pay? No. Are there comments or questions on subhead A3, plant and machinery or subhead A4, hydrometric and hydrological investigation and monitoring? No.

I have a question on subhead A5, flood risk management. A lot of money under that heading is going into many positive works. In my previous capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, I note the Minister of State appeared before it on foot of his relationship with the OPW and so on. I refer to a problem that both this sub-committee and certainly the aforementioned joint committee must consider. The issue is that the State is spending an incredible amount of money on flood remedial works, flood engineering works, flood improvements and so on. However, the difficulty is that areas of the country still are geocoded by the insurance industry as flood risks. Moreover, even after the OPW and the local authorities have carried out works in those areas, there is no recognition by insurance companies that such work has been done. In effect, some households cannot take out domestic home insurance at present. It is a problem for them at present and will be a problem in the future for them because such houses cannot be sold. While I acknowledge this issue does not come directly under the Minister of State's expenditure remit, I would like to see its resolution as an output, in that it should be one of the objectives. While the Estimates outline the bricks and mortar aspect of what is being done by the OPW, relief for the domestic owners does not appear to be an output therein, but I believe it should be.

The Chairman's suggestion is useful because in this area, the decision to initiate a comprehensive conversation with the Irish Insurance Federation was an initiative of the Office of Public Works. It is fair to state this is very much part of the work programme within that office. The Chairman rightly pointed out the substantial investment the State has expended in recent years and I take this opportunity to thank the Government for the capital envelope of expenditure, which effectively is approximately €45 million per annum over a five-year period. Progress is required from the Irish Insurance Federation. I am glad to be able to report to members that we have had this conversation with it each month this year. I am relatively optimistic that we will be able to come to agree on a memorandum of understanding by the summertime. Moreover, I hope such a memorandum of understanding will do two things. First, it should agree that the Irish Insurance Federation will accept that in the great majority of cases, the works the OPW has carried out are to the 101-year standard. That is the first point, namely, where the Government has expended the money, the insurance companies would know the works it has carried out have actually met that standard. Second, there should be an ongoing dialogue between the Office of Public Works and the insurers on the pipeline of other developments and schemes the OPW intends to bring forward and other schemes. While the Government cannot give comfort to people in locations where a scheme has not been put in place, where such a scheme has been implemented and the State has expended substantial sums of money, it is only right and proper that the insurance industry would recognise that fact, given the standard this office has brought to bear in its work. Consequently, I am hopeful and optimistic that such an understanding can be reached. I believe it will help to give some comfort to people where the OPW has completed schemes in locations such as Clonmel and Fermoy, where all these works have been brought to the exacting standard the OPW has now ensured. In such cases, it is important, right and only proper that the insurance industry would take note of this and provide insurance accordingly.

In response, I certainly acknowledge the role of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, in moving this issue forward because it has been a bugbear that has persisted for a considerable period.

I thank the Chairman.

As I understand it, the issue is that at times, the insurance industry claims not to know that a significant programme has been carried out in a particular area that previously had been geocoded as a flood risk. In Germany, for instance - this came up in my discussions with some of these stakeholders in the area - a protocol or code of conduct, which is called a certification process, is in place.

Given that some major insurance companies are based in Germany it is a framework with which they are familiar. At the end of a process the insurance companies, the OPW and the local authorities could have a certification process on which everyone signs off to ensure compliance. The insurance companies would be right to say that it is fine to build, for example, a culvert to rectify the problem but the local authority has a responsibility to manage it on an ongoing basis. It is not sufficient just to build a culvert if it is filled up with debris, including sofas and tyres, in six months’ time, as was the case in Blackpool recently. The certification process must include a monitoring element. Is the Minister of State thinking along the lines of a certification process to which the insurance industry would have to subscribe in terms of his proposed meeting with the Irish Insurance Federation?

My thinking is twofold. First, we must work out practical issues between the OPW and the insurers in terms of a flow of information. The Irish Insurance Federation must be confident that the information we give its members is the full picture and that it would disseminate the information to its member companies. There is, however, a wider issue. We will be in a better space when we have all signed off on the catchment flood risk assessment and management studies, CFRAMS. The entire country has been divided up into river basin catchment areas. There is a more corporate view on flooding maps and all of the issues that surround the potential occurrence of flood risk. When I first went to the office in Trim two years ago I asked the engineers about the size of the problem. It was said to me in a direct way that there are 250 hot-spots around the country where at any given time we could have flooding or a major event with significant loss to business and homes. Putting the CFRAMS in place and signing off on the process following agreement at European level will provide a corporate view. We are not there yet. We have to sign off on the process by the end of 2015 and the maps must be in place by the end of this year. We will all be able to say then that at least we know where the risks are and where the potential work must happen. It will be important for the insurance industry to know our schemes in the future so that we will be able to continue to roll out the schemes, as long as we have money to do that.

The Government is carrying out positive action led by the Minister of State. Could I suggest that it would be included in the outputs because it is a desired outcome?

That is a fair point. We should examine that approach. This process is new to us as well. It is an output of the office. In fairness, the Office of Public Works has been leading on the issue and I have been pushing the insurance industry to accept our maps and the standard. I fully accept the Chairman’s point.

I welcome the fact that there is €70 million for a flood risk management programme. I note that further funding will be provided to local authorities in 2013 to progress a minor works scheme. Was there a particular focus or are there criteria relating to the scheme? Could a drainage scheme be introduced in conjunction with local farmers in the context of the flooding of farm land? It would improve the quality of a lot of land that is affected by flooding. Much of the flooding on land comes onto the road and it can cause a serious problem. Has there been any focus in that regard? Would the Minister of State consider community projects in conjunction with farmers?

First, I thank the Deputy for her remarks. The minor works scheme is very important. We have an open-door policy in the Office of Public Works. The local authority is the key body which applies to the office to draw down funds, up to a maximum of €500,000, which is a significant sum of money. Some of the schemes could cost €20,000 or €30,000 but many of them cost €300,000 or €400,000 which are significant amounts of money.

For example, Carlow County Council, or in the case of Deputy Humphreys, Monaghan County Council, can apply on a 24-7 basis to the Office of Public Works and the information obtained in the application is put through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The criteria covering the scheme are on the website and are available for the public to peruse at any given time. The system churns out a number, for example, on a spend of €300,000, and tells us whether it provides value for money. The system is open and transparent. If the number is good we will then write back to the local authority and tell it to get the work done and we will provide funds. The system is working well.

I will provide a note of caution. I do not wish to dump on local authorities but it can be frustrating when the office provides expenditure for a local authority only to find that at the end of the year the money has not been spent. I accept there are contractual issues for local authorities but I wish to use the opportunity provided by the committee to get the view out that local authorities must spend the money they are given. We work in a strong partnership approach with local authorities on a range of issues. We have offices around the country where we work with them on flooding and hydrological issues. This is an important scheme and I would encourage local authorities to use the funding provided.

We have responsibility under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945 to look after some schemes but the great majority of schemes are under the control of local authorities or private landowners. Our key responsibility is under the Arterial Drainage Act and that is where our priority lies, notwithstanding the fact that budgets are always difficult. The minor works scheme is a very effective means of sorting out little problems. The key priority is, first, whether someone could die if a flood occurred, second, the number of houses that would be affected, and, third, the number of commercial properties affected. Farm land is important but I will not pretend that it is as important as someone’s house.

I would like the Minister of State to pass on to the OPW my admiration of the work it does in many areas. I have had experience of it in the past when I worked with ICC Bank. I was aware of much of the work it did and the property portfolios it managed.

I commend the Minister of State on the flood risk fund and the work that will be addressed in that regard. Could anything be gained from a conversation with Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances Limited, which has a lot of underwriting experience with public bodies and their properties and liabilities with a view to risk appraisal for flood risk management? Perhaps if it has a lot of surplus that it does not require in the reserves it might like to contribute something towards the €70 million fund. It is just a thought.

Any contribution would be gratefully accepted. I am aware of Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances Limited which provides insurance for local authorities in the main.

It also provides insurance for Aer Lingus and other such bodies.

It is certainly worth pursuing. The argument made by insurance plcs when I speak to them is that they have taken a significant hit following the serious weather events we have had since 2008 and 2009 and it makes the Irish market less attractive. They tell me that the Irish market is effectively the same as Manchester in the United Kingdom in terms of its size and scale and that there are significant risks involved because of the weather events. We would encourage any insurer, public or private, who would want to move into the space of insuring risk. I will take up the Deputy’s suggestion and propose to meet the company. I do not see any difficulty with doing that and it might be useful to do so.

It is not just a matter of providing against the outcomes of risk events, it is also about managing the risks, which is exactly the work the OPW is doing, namely, building up flood------

Defence schemes.

Yes. Other ways of managing risk include the provision of culverts, building up the banks of rivers and doing whatever else is required, including relieving flows on rivers during flash floods. All such activity manages the risk and while the investment to prevent them is upfront it can have a big pay-off.

If there are any initiatives the company wants to take in this area it would be more than welcome.

By the way, the turnover of Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances Limited is in the region of €400 million a year. It is a lot of money if it has surplus reserves of between 5% and 10% a year.

In the banking area, we are examining how to treat the State as one entity for the purpose of procurement in terms of all the accounts that exist. Irish Public Bodies Mutual Insurances Limited is one such example.

I will put it this way. If funds exist in various ways in different State accounts we must get maximum benefit from them, which we are not doing at present. We need to start procuring banking facilities and services on a much more corporate basis. That is one of the tasks for the shared service model. It dealt first with HR, is now dealing with payroll and pensions and will look at banking. There is no reason we cannot make enormous savings in this area, as the British have done in recent years. We have to follow that example.

I thank Deputy Mathews and the Minister of State. Before we finish with Vote 13 I refer to an administration cost for travel and subsistence that shows an increase of 58%. In his notes the Minister of State gave some explanation for this.

The reason for this is that we have taken over responsibility for maintenance of all Departments. Up to now, there was an amount contained in their Estimates which they spent on maintaining their own buildings. We recently got a decision of Government, in consequence of which we are going to maintain their buildings and they have given us this money to do so. They put us in funds for that purpose. For that reason there is now much greater demand on our work, as one might expect. The big saving is that where there were up to six people in a Department managing its maintenance, we are now doing this for them which frees up a group of people to do many other tasks in that Department. We are also getting savings by aggregating the work and having greater economies of scale. That is the reason the amount has increased so much.

I thank the Minister of State. Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs and targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 contexts and impact indicators agreed? Agreed. I will make a note on the amendment to the impact indicators.

On programme B, national procurement service, NPS, subheads B1 and B2, administration, are there any comments or questions? On subhead B3, Government publication service, are there any comments or questions? I come to subhead B4, the procurement service, which is given a headline increase of 89%, from €1.190 million to €2.260 million, an increase of more than €1 million. There is another figure contained for the non-pay section showing that the administration cost is moving from €330,000 to €957,000, an almost threefold increase. Will the Minister of State give some indication on these figures?

One of the areas we highlighted in public sector reform is the putting together of a new procurement service. That requires bringing in new people who have specialist knowledge of individual markets and categories within them. That is the reason for the increase; there is an additional staff complement.

I thank the Minister of State. Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs and targets agreed? Are the 2012 context and impact indicators agreed? Agreed.

On programme C, State portfolio management, subheads C1 and C2 are for administration - pay and non-pay. Are there any comments or questions? On subhead C3, the President's household staff pay, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C4, the Zoological Society of Ireland, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C5, grants for certain refurbishment works, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C6, purchase of sites and buildings, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C7, new works, alterations and additions, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C8, property maintenance and supplies, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C9, rents, rates, etc., are there any comments or questions? On subhead C10, fuel, electricity and water, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C11, unitary payments, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C12, heritage services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead C13, the EU Presidency, are there any comments or questions?

I refer back to subhead C4, which deals with the Zoological Society of Ireland. Given recent events such as the thievery of rhinoceros horns, should we evaluate what these people have in stock at any moment in time?

We look at any assets we have and how we can get rid of them. My understanding is this refers to a piece of work we have been doing for the zoo, mostly relating to an elephant house on which the OPW has been working with the Zoological Gardens. I understand it is now completed and the money is finished.

It came as a surprise to us that the rhinoceros horn had a value of almost €500,000. My point is whether the Department needs to carry out an audit of what is actually in stock.

That is a fair point.

Is there a value on the stock?

We are in charge of elephants but not rhinoceroses which apparently are a matter for the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, and come under his jurisdiction.

That goes back to his Kerry football days, I suppose.

I suspect so. We are in charge of bull elephants.

Are the 2012 outputs agreed? Agreed. Are the 2013 outputs targets agreed? Agreed. Are the 2012 contexts and impact indicators agreed? Agreed. I refer to administration subheads A(i) to A(vii). On subhead A(i), salaries, wages and allowances, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(ii), travel and subsistence, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(iii), training and development and incidental expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(iv), postal and telecommunications services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(v), office equipment and external IT services, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(vi), office premises expenses, are there any comments or questions? On subhead A(vii), consultancy services, value for money and policy reviews, are there any comments or questions?

I refer to appropriations-in-aid, subheads D1 to D8, inclusive. Are there any comments or questions? There is a significant income difference in the appropriations-in-aid that come under subhead D7. It is for miscellaneous, including fees, interest and disposals etc. Will the Minister of State explain to me the reason for the difference between the figure of €1.2 million and €3.1 million?

There is an extra element. The Chairman may remember that in my opening remarks I mentioned the energy efficiency campaign, the optimising power at work campaign. We have been given €1.7 million to run that programme and that is the reason the figure has increased from €1.2 million to €3.1 million.

That is all. I thank the Minister of State's officials for assisting the committee in our consideration of the Revised Estimates and programmes.

Top
Share