Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2014

Chapter 5 - Vote Budget Management

Mr. Robert Watt(Secretary General, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform) called and examined.

Before we begin I remind witnesses, members and those in the Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones because they interfere with the sound quality and transmission of the meeting.

I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind Members of the provision within Standing Order 163 that the committee should also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. Robert Watt, Secretary General at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and I ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Robert Watt

The committee has met most of these officials previously but, just to introduce them, they are Ms Judith Brady, Ms Annette Connolly, Ms Oonagh Buckley, Ms Helen Codd and Mr. Paul Quinn. I think we sent the names in advance - all are present and correct.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to give his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The 2012 appropriation account for the Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform records expenditure totalling €42.6 million on two programme areas. Some €23.8 million was spent on activities related to public service management and reform. Some €18.8 million was spent on management of the system of public expenditure. At the end of the year, the Department had underspent by €4.6 million relative to its budget, and that amount was accordingly liable for surrender back to the Exchequer.

Vote 12 presents the expenditure in relation to Civil Service and prison officer pensions. Pension payments for other public servants are charged to other votes, including those for Education, the HSE, Garda Síochána and Army pensions. The total spend on Vote 12 in 2012 amounted to €520 million. Appropriations-in-aid amounted to €88 million, and mainly comprised employee pension contributions.

The costs of administering Civil Service pension payments is borne by the Vote of the Office of the Minister for Finance. Costs of policy formulation in relation to civil and public servants are borne by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform Vote. The non-inclusion of administration costs is reflected in the format of the appropriation account for Vote 12.

In 2012, I recommended that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform should regularly estimate the State's accrued liability for future pension payments, especially given the significant changes in recent years in pension contributions, entitlements and employment numbers. The last published estimate relates to the position at end 2009, and put the liability at a total of €116 billion. When I reported last September, the Department had begun an exercise to update the estimate which I understand will be reported annually in the finance accounts. The Accounting Officer will be able to update the committee in that regard.

Chapter 3 focuses on central government's financial commitments under contractual public private partnerships. At the end of 2012, there were five central government Departments and agencies with financial commitments under a total of 38 major PPP contracts. The total expenditure already incurred on those projects by end 2012 was just over €2.6 billion and the outstanding commitment was estimated at nearly €4.2 billion. One new PPP contract, the Schools Bundle 3, was awarded in 2012.

The central PPP unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform facilitates the PPP process centrally by setting the general policy framework and provides guidance to Departments and agencies on appraisal, procurement and evaluation of projects. The Department's guidance stipulates that a post-project review is mandatory for all projects with a capital value greater than €20 million. When I reported, only one PPP deal had so far been subject to a formal post-project review. The Courts Service commissioned a review of the Dublin criminal courts complex contract. The complex came into use in late 2009, and was fully operating from January 2010. The review, which was completed in October 2012, concluded that the project processes had been satisfactory but suggested that further analysis should be carried out on the impact of the project on court business, for example, the effect on court waiting times, cost savings, etc. As previously reported by my office, the original business case for the criminal courts project identified potential benefits in general and qualitative terms, but more could have been done to quantify the expected business benefits. As a result, there will be difficulties in carrying out a meaningful post-project review of the extent to which expected benefits have been realised.

Both the Department of Education and Skills and the National Roads Authority indicated to us last summer that reviews were in progress on certain projects. I am aware that some of the roads project reviews have been completed. We will examine these and may report further on the outcomes.

Contracts for some PPP projects provide for benchmarking of operating costs to be undertaken from time to time. These potentially afford the relevant public bodies the opportunity to secure savings in respect of contract services. For example, following a benchmarking exercise, the Courts Service secured annual savings estimated at over €160,000 a year. The chapter recommended that Departments and agencies engaged in PPP projects be reminded by the Department of the importance of engaging in periodic benchmarking of costs, where this is provided for in the contract.

There are two main elements in Chapter 4 dealing with Vote accounting in 2013. The first element is the standard aggregation and reporting on the outturn for appropriation accounts. Figure 4.1 indicates that total gross voted expenditure in 2012 amounted to €49 billion – a reduction of €4.8 billion or 9% from the peak level in 2008. All Departments and offices managed within their voted 2012 allocations. Overall, the surplus relative to the amount appropriated was around €750 million. Of this, Departments and offices carried over to 2013 just over €100 million, with the sanction of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The balance was surrendered to the Exchequer.

The chapter also draws attention to a small number of issues arising from the audits of appropriation accounts that raise specific accounting or control issues. These relate to duplicate payment of salary over a long period to an individual who initially went on secondment and then transferred from the Central Statistics Office to another Department; contributions from both a Vote and a departmental fund in relation to the same service, making it more difficult to identify the full contribution, and weakening the vote control function; and pre-payment of Ireland's 2013 UN contribution on the last day of 2012 out of funding that would otherwise be surrendered, and contrary to the general government accounting principle that charges on votes should be "mature for payment" within the year, which was discussed with the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade when he appeared before the committee.

The chapter also presents the final financial outturn following the disposal of e-voting machines.

Chapter 5 is an examination of how well central government Departments and offices manage the budgets they are allocated by Dáil Éireann each year. It also assesses whether appropriation accounts present adequate explanations of the extent to which outturns differ from the original budgets.

Estimates are presented to the Dáil with varying levels of detail as to how the money sought will be used. The Estimates of expenditure presented to the Dáil for approval early in the year should reasonably accurately represent the amount that it is expected will be spent on each departmental service. They also effectively serve as cash limits. Departments are required to monitor and manage expenditure within the programmes and subhead allocations approved by the Dáil. If spending begins to run ahead of the profile, or threatens to do so, Departments are required to take action to bring it back into line with the approved estimate. If large adjustments to the budgets for programmes or subheads are required as the year progresses, formal approval must be sought from the Dáil, through the Supplementary Estimate process.

In practice, only a small number of Departments seek Supplementary Estimates in any year. Figure 5.4, in chapter 5, shows the Votes that regularly have required Supplementary Estimates in recent years. These include the Votes for the HSE, Army pensions, An Garda Síochána and the Courts Service. There is a separate chapter dealing with budget management in the HSE, which the committee is scheduled to examine on another date.

Chapter 5 also deals with a general issue affecting Vote accounting. In the past, appropriation accounts were required to explain significant variances from amounts appropriated by Dáil Éireann which occur in December of the year of account after any Supplementary Estimate adjustments. Explanations were rarely given about expenditure lines that were adjusted as a result of a Supplementary Estimate. Consequently, some appropriation accounts gave only partial explanations of their performance relative to budget. I have recommended that, in future, explanations should be based on the variance from the original budget. The Department agreed to review the accounting policy, and the Accounting Officer will be able to update the committee in that regard.

Mr. Robert Watt

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to make a short statement. I would like to talk briefly about the role of the Department, and then discuss in detail relevant aspects of the 2012 appropriation account and the 2012 report that the Comptroller and Auditor General has outlined.

A key aspect of our Department’s work since its establishment in 2011, which work has been carried out in conjunction with the Department of Finance, has been the strategy for fiscal consolidation. This has involved very significant reductions in Government spending. Since its peak in 2009, gross voted expenditure has been reduced by 13.5%, from €63.1 billion in 2009 to €54.6 billion in 2013. Consolidation measures to date have ensured Ireland's successful exit from the troika programme. A further reduction of €1.7 billion is budgeted for this year, 2014. This consolidation has required effective budgeting and it is worth noting that gross spending has been broadly in line or below profile in each of the years since the Department was established. In 2012, the year we are debating this morning, the variance was 0.2% on gross expenditure of €98 million. That is out of a budget over €60 billion. It is a very modest variance from the Estimate.

I would like to highlight this morning two aspects of this consolidation: reform of the budgetary and Estimates process and the ongoing reform of the public sector. With our colleagues in the Department of Finance, we have implemented a set of reforms to Ireland’s budgetary architecture. We hope they will improve the management of public resources, increase transparency in the budgetary process, and deliver greater value for money for public spending.

A new medium-term expenditure framework, setting out multi-annual ceilings for each Department, has been implemented. The amount of information provided in the annual Estimates has been increased as part of the implementation of our performance budgeting initiative. We hope that is useful for committees, particularly this one, when examining public expenditure.

A new public spending code has been introduced to ensure that both current and capital expenditure are subject to more rigorous value-for-money appraisal in advance of public moneys being spent. The website www.irelandstat.gov.ie – the whole-of-government performance measurement website – was launched. The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service was established to support better policy-making across the system. We know from previous reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including the one we are discussing this morning, that a lack of capacity in policy areas led to mistakes, which led to value-for-money issues when it came to particular programmes. We are very determined to improve the capacity and policy capacity across the Civil Service. We will shortly be commencing a second comprehensive review of expenditure to examine spending and inform the next three-year cycle of fiscal targets and expenditure allocations, for 2015 to 2017.

Along with the work of this committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and internal audit committee, these reforms continue to embed a value-for-money culture across the public service. Of course, we are happy to work with members of this committee to see what further steps can be taken. I am happy to hear suggestions based on the work they undertake. I will speak in a moment about some of the specific Vote budget management issues that have been raised.

The ongoing reform of the public service has been necessary to ensure that important services continue to be provided as spending is reduced. In a recession, demand for public services increases. Our latest recession was no different. Demands on our public services have increased and we have maintained service provision while reducing staff numbers by over 30,000 since 2008. The public service pay bill has fallen from €17.5 billion in 2009 to €14.1 billion last year. Further reductions are scheduled for 2014. New working arrangements have been introduced, including longer working hours. Some 15 million additional hours are in the system on foot of the Haddington Road agreement. New rosters and standardised arrangements for annual leave and sick leave have been introduced. We are making good progress on increasing efficiency in areas such as public procurement, shared services, digitalisation and property management. Further details of these reforms are set out in the second progress report, which the Minister, Deputy Howlin, published in January of this year. At that time, the Minister also published a new public service reform plan for the period 2014 to 2016. It sets out a new phase in the reform programme and our ambitions for the period ahead.

Reform has been enabled by a climate of industrial peace that we have worked to maintain over the past three years. The Croke Park agreement delivered on its objectives. The Haddington Road agreement sets out measures to deliver further savings out to 2016. As I mentioned, it provides for a total of 15 million additional hours annually across all sectors of the public service, which will help to deliver long-term and sustainable increases in productivity. Reform is about productivity, and we can see significant gains in productivity across the system. That is an important point worth highlighting. When people talk about reform, their meaning is sometimes a little nebulous. What we mean is that we do more or the same with less. It is ultimately about productivity and delivering more.

I would also like to highlight to the committee some further aspects of our work in the Department that may be of interest. The Civil Service - that smaller part of the public service with a staff of 35,000 - has gone through a period of change and we, as leaders in the Civil Service, recognise that further change and renewal are required. Last year, we started a Civil Service renewal process. The purpose of this process is to set out a new, clear vision for the service and the actions required to deliver on this. We are looking at areas where capacity and capability need to be developed to meet current and future challenges. These include areas such as leadership, change management, policy formation, and project and policy implementation. Enhancing our HR capacity, different recruitment models and increased investment in training and skills are integral to the agenda.

As part of a broad consultation process, a series of town hall meetings are taking place across the country to brief civil servants on the issues being addressed and to seek their input and ideas. To date, almost 1,700 staff have engaged with this process. This is the widest process of this type we have ever undertaken. On another day, we will be very happy to come here to brief the committee on what is happening with and planned for this process and on some of the findings.

In January, we published a consultation paper on strengthening Civil Service accountability and performance. Greater clarity, transparency and common understanding of responsibilities will accelerate improvements in how the Civil Service works and how performance is assessed. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, intends to publish the outcome from these various processes in July before the summer break.

Let me mention a few other developments of interest to the committee that relate to our Department. The Office of Government Procurement has been established to improve how public procurement is structured and managed, and we have targeted savings of over €500 million over the next three years. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has also been established within the Department to build on our performance on e-government and to maximise the potential benefits of digitalisation and open data to deliver services in a more efficient and innovative way. PeoplePoint, the Civil Service HR and pensions shared service centre, was established and it now provides services to 24,000 civil servants across 19 organisations. When fully operational, PeoplePoint will deliver savings estimated at €12.5 million per annum and, critically from our perspective, improve the quality of information for managers across different Government Departments.

The Civil Service payroll shared services centre is being established under our Department. Twenty-seven of the 53 in-scope bodies will transition into the new services centre this year. When fully operational, this service will also deliver savings each year.

We have also undertaken a base-lining and business case exercise for a financial management shared service to assess the potential for streamlining and improving the processes in respect of financial management that currently operate across 48 bodies in the Civil Service, defence and justice sectors. On completion of this assessment, a further submission will be made to the Government to proceed to full implementation of a shared services approach to financial management. An estimated €14.6 million in savings could be delivered and the project, if implemented, will also yield benefits in terms of improved financial management information, adding value to both financial analysis and decision-making across the system.

Moving to accrual accounting is an important related issue. Our Department is engaging with stakeholders to identify the relevant issues and will be engaging with this committee in due course. The process needs to take account of a number of related developments, including proposals for EU harmonised accounting standards, the recommendations of the IMF fiscal transparency assessment report and the financial management shared services project. These will be important changes affecting the management of public money. The Comptroller and Auditor General is involved with us and we are very happy to brief the committee in detail as the project advances.

Turning to the political reform agenda, our Department is supporting a range of initiatives in this area. We have drafted changes in legislation to give greater powers to the Ombudsman and for the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries within the current constitutional framework. We are also participating in the Open Government Partnership, which includes a number of countries. Other legislative reforms being advanced include the regulation of lobbying, a reformed Freedom of Information Act, legislation to protect whistleblowers and the further strengthening of the ethical framework for officeholders and public servants.

In addition to these political reform measures, the Department has prepared and published five pieces of legislation in the past 12 months. I have set them out in my speech. Last year, we dealt with a total of 1,956 parliamentary questions and are hoping for more than 2,000 this year. We also dealt with 1,699 representations.

I would now like to turn to some specific items on the agenda today. Listening to the Comptroller and Auditor General's remarks, I should say that we accept all the recommendations listed in the report. In most cases, they are being implemented. The first item is the 2012 Appropriation Accounts for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The Department had an outturn of €37 million in 2012, compared to an estimate of almost €42 million, leaving a surplus to surrender of €4.6 million. This variance arose largely because of savings on administrative budget pay of over €2 million due to a large number of retirements in February 2012 and slower than anticipated appointments to key posts as we sought to ensure the necessary skills were recruited and savings of almost €1.8 million arising from the timing of funding draw downs on cross-Border PEACE and INTERREG initiatives.

Vote 12 provides primarily for pension benefits for civil servants and pension payments to their dependants. The original gross 2012 Estimate for the Vote was just over €500 million. This was subsequently increased by way of Supplementary Estimate to a revised gross Estimate of some €525 million to accommodate higher retirement levels in 2012. The gross outturn under Vote 12 for 2012 was €520.5 million. We agree fully with the Comptroller and Auditor General's recommendation that from now on, variance should relate to the original budget as opposed to the budget augmented by a Supplementary Estimate. We think that is a good suggestion and we have written to Departments by way of a new circular, which will be reflected in future accounts. The higher than anticipated numbers retiring in 2012 impacted significantly on the A4 subhead from which once-off lump sum pension payments are made. The original 2012 Estimate had been €116 million against an outturn of €83.4 million in 2011. However, expenditure of €134 million had taken place on the subhead by November 2012. It was against this background that a Supplementary Estimate was required.

A new single public service pension scheme for new entrants to the public service has been introduced which sees pension benefits based on career-average earnings rather than final salary for all new entrants since the start of 2013. There is a new minimum public service pension age of 66 for these "new joiners" which will rise in step with changes in the state pension age to 67 in 2021 and 68 in 2028. In addition, with effect from 1 July last year, there has been a further reduction in the rates of public service pensions of between 2% and 5% for those in receipt of pensions of more than €32,500.

At my appearance here last October, I stated that following discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor General, my Department had commenced a major actuarial exercise with the intention of updating the accrued liability in respect of public service occupational pension schemes. I can inform the committee that my Department has now completed an exercise to estimate the accrued liability in respect of public service occupational pension schemes. The key result is that the accrued liability in respect of public service pensions is estimated at €98 billion as at end December 2012. This figure is €18 billion lower than the previous estimate of €116 billion that was arrived at by the Comptroller and Auditor General for 2009. Therefore, over the three years from 2009 to 2012, the accrued liability has fallen by €18 billion or 16%. This reduction reflects the effect that expenditure control and containment in respect of pay and pensions have had on the overall liability since the last valuation. Further details of this work are on our website. If policies had not been changed on a "no policy" basis, the accrued liability would have been over €130 billion by now. The measures we have taken have reduced it by €18 billion against the 2009 Estimate but if we had done nothing, the Estimate would be over €130 billion.

Ireland currently has 17 operational public private partnerships, PPPs. Two additional PPPs have reached financial close and are currently under construction. Expenditure on PPPs to the end of 2012 was almost €2 billion. Future unitary charge commitments, including the two additional projects now under construction, were almost €6.6 billion at the end of 2012. That represents the total liability from the PPP projects. In July 2012, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform announced plans for an additional €2.25 billion investment in public infrastructure projects in Ireland, which included the new €1.5 billion PPP phase 1 programme. This investment is additional to the Exchequer public capital programme, as it is primarily funded by the private sector. Due to co-ordinated efforts by many Departments and agencies over the past 18 months, particularly the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, the Irish PPP market has made a significant turnaround and has finally reopened to Irish projects. Phase 1 PPPs are progressing well and in line with market capacity. Seven of the nine projects announced in the stimulus plan have issued to market.

Dealing now with Vote accounting, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report shows that departmental spending funded from the Exchequer fell from €49.3 billion in 2008 to €44.9 billion in 2012, a reduction of almost 9%. Each Vote stayed within the allocation appropriated by Dáil Éireann for 2012, with Departments surrendering €641 million back to the Exchequer at the end of the year, having regard to Supplementary Estimates.

While the management of expenditure within voted allocations is the responsibility of each Department and Office, the reforms to the medium-term expenditure framework implemented in the past year will assist with the control of departmental spending. The arrangements for ministerial expenditure ceilings have been placed on a statutory basis. An administrative circular issued by my Department details the rules and arrangements for planning and managing current expenditure within these ceilings. Under the common budgetary timeline introduced as part of the EU two-pack regulations, the annual budget was published on 15 October. In line with this new timetable, the Revised Estimates volume for 2014 was published on 18 December 2013. This new timetable allowed much earlier consideration of the Estimates by the relevant Oireachtas committees.

I hope I have been able to give some examples of the work of the Department. Once again, I would like to acknowledge the work and commitment of officials in the Department who continue to deliver on a very significant agenda for the Minister and Government. We look forward to working with the committee as we continue our work.

I thank Mr. Watt. Can we publish his statement?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

I welcome Mr. Watt and his colleagues. He sent us a briefing note outlining some information on Monday, 31 March 2014. I want to refer to two items. Mr. Watt said that the purpose of the IMF fiscal assessment report was to conduct a review of fiscal reporting, forecasting, budgeting and risk disclosures practices during March and April 2013. That report was then carried out, including the field visit in March 2013. Has that report been published?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes. It is on the Department of Finance website.

Mr. Watt said that the recommendations are under consideration.

Are they all accepted and when will we see the Department's published response to them?

Mr. Robert Watt

We accept all of the recommendations. We were interested in having the IMF stand back to examine our approach to budgeting and financial management. Generally it is very positive about our financial procedures and approach to budgeting. It made a series of recommendations which will bring it to the next level, the level of the best countries in the IMF. We need to improve in a number of areas. We are currently looking at fiscal risks, fiscal forecasting, accrual accounting and preparation of balance sheets. The figure I announced today in respect of future liabilities is an example of that work. We can publish the recommendations and set out our current position in respect of a number of them. However, its key recommendations on accruals and the format of accounts will have to dovetail with the EU's harmonised accounting regulations, which are not yet ready. We do not want to commit to a particular approach on foot of the IMF assessment only to find that the EU is taking a different approach if it means we have to reset the systems. Part of the work will therefore have to wait until we can see how it can be dovetailed between the two systems.

One change we introduced which has not received much attention relates to the quarterly Exchequer statements, the most recent of which was issued yesterday. We now present information on a gross revenue and expenditure basis, in addition to the traditional Exchequer statement. The Chair will recall that we were criticised in the past for presenting data purely on a net basis because it does not facilitate getting a good handle on, for example, gross expenditure compared to PRSI receipts. Our new format outlining gross revenue and spending is a clearer approach and it takes on board one of the IMF's recommendations.

Will this help the Department's budgeting calculations and avoid the need for the substantial Supplementary Estimates that we get annually from certain Departments?

Mr. Robert Watt

In overall terms, if one considers the gross total the variance is very modest.

I am asking about departmental figures. To cut to the chase, it is within 99% of target. However some Departments are out by hundreds of million of euro.

Mr. Robert Watt

We are at 99.8% for 2012. The report for 2012 identifies issues with six Votes out of a total of 41, including the HSE and hospital budgets.

Mr. Robert Watt

They are the significant ones. A separate report sets out the issues arising in respect of the HSE and its budget challenges. Members will be aware of the challenges. They include demand-led schemes in terms of medical cards and a 24-seven hospital system. It is difficult to budget with the type of accuracy sought but the HSE, the Department of Health and my Department accept the need to improve the budgeting process to ensure the variance is lower.

Where are we in terms of the process of devising an Estimate? Will we see a repeat of the situation whereby Estimates are announced on budget day only to be changed subsequently because the HSE, as the biggest State employer, says they are not achievable? Will we be publishing annual Estimates in the knowledge that the head of the organisation who asked to make the biggest budget adjustment says it cannot be done? Is that issue out of Mr. Watt's control? We want to be able to rely on statements on budget day.

Mr. Robert Watt

Absolutely.

We heard statements on budget day in regard to which key people involved in achieving the stated budget savings denied agreeing.

Mr. Robert Watt

The budget that is set is the Estimate at the time and the Revised Estimate, which is the more definitive account, involves a certain amount of changes. This time around additional resources amounting to €50 million were allocated to the HSE to reflect the further review of medical card probity, as the Deputy will be aware. My Department, the Department of Health and the HSE are not happy about the variance that arises year on year between the outturn and the budget.

Mr. Watt is Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. On budget day, his Minister presented the Dáil with the Estimates of expenditure for 2014. Was Mr. Watt satisfied at the time that the Estimates were correct and, if so, what persuaded him to revise the figure afterwards?

Mr. Robert Watt

The three budgets for which we have been responsible -----

I am referring to the budget for this year.

Mr. Robert Watt

The Minister has set out the allocations and, as I noted in my contribution, the variance against profile has been very modest, at €98 million or 0.2% for 2012. We are satisfied that budgeting has been very effective in overall terms. In the absence of that effective budgeting we would not have been in a position to manage the troika programme or to leave it last year. We are aware that there are a number of areas in which we need to improve our budgeting. It is set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that the variances in the past several years have been consistent and of a scale with which we are not happy. We agree that we need to improve our budgeting in regard to the HSE.

Is that a "Yes" or "No" answer to a simple question? As Accounting Officer, was Mr. Watt satisfied that the Estimates published by his Department on budget day were correct?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

What changed his mind immediately after they were published?

Mr. Robert Watt

We did not change our mind. There was an Estimate for medical card probity of €100 million or more.

Was Mr. Watt happy with the figure when it was published?

Mr. Robert Watt

We were happy with it on the day. When we subsequently entered into further discussions with the Department of Health and the HSE, the implications of the proposed measures came to light and additional money was allocated as part of the Revised Estimate.

In other words, would the new IMF guidelines require the Department to have those discussions with the HSE and the Department of Health before announcing the Estimates? Is it good practice to announce Estimates and revise them subsequently? Would it not have been better to discuss them before publishing them?

Mr. Robert Watt

It would be a useful exercise - and we can provide this for the committee - to look back at the difference between the Estimates announced on budget day and the Revised Estimates set out six or seven weeks later. We made an adjustment of €50 million to the Revised Estimate this year compared to the Estimate on budget day, which is marginal in the context of €60 billion of gross expenditure.

The dogs on the street could see on the day that an issue had arisen in that regard. Was Mr. Watt unable to see it? I met nobody who believed the figure announced on budget day but Mr. Watt was happy with it.

Mr. Robert Watt

I was happy with it.

Nobody else seemed to believe it.

Mr. Robert Watt

I am happy to be in a minority if that is the case.

In the letter Mr. Watt sent to us on Monday he referred to the working group tasked with reviewing the framework for grant funding by public bodies. What is the quantum of grants that are being reviewed across each Department and does it include the Department of Health, IDA, Enterprise Ireland and local authorities? If Mr. Watt does not have the exact figures before him, can he send us a breakdown by each Department?

Mr. Robert Watt

Sure.

If a working group has been established, it must have the figures.

Mr. Robert Watt

We have the figures. Within the health system the figure is approximately €3 billion. In respect of section 39 bodies, there are approximately 2,600 agencies -----

Do these grants include grants to bodies like the IDA?

Mr. Robert Watt

Grants in aid.

Do they include contracts for services?

Mr. Robert Watt

Within the health system they involve grants in aid to the section 39 hospitals. The grant would be made for the delivery of a particular service. We also provide a variety of grants through IDA, Enterprise Ireland and agricultural supports. We can set out the allocations for each Department in tabular form. They are quite significant.

How many billion euro does it come to?

Mr. Robert Watt

It is several billion euro.

The figure for health is €3 billion.

Mr. Robert Watt

It is approximately €4 billion or €5 billion. There is €1 billion for agriculture and nearly €1 billion for enterprise supports.

Does that figure include local authorities?

Mr. Robert Watt

There are specific grants either from the local government fund or from other sources, such as the environment Vote.

Send us the list for each Department.

Mr. Robert Watt

In revising the circular, we are making it clear that when Departments provide grants to non-public bodies they should be much more involved so they can be satisfied that the money is being spent in line with the objectives and that value for money criteria are being met. We are also proposing that bodies which receive money should publish basic information about incomes and objectives.

Although we have not issued a circular yet, when I provide the committee with information on the grant-in-aid for each Department I could also send a copy of the draft circular so members can see what we envisage.

The HSE has been before this committee talking about its section 39 agreements and contracts. Will this lead to a further revision of the documentation?

Mr. Robert Watt

It will be consistent with the approach the HSE has adopted for the section 39 organisations.

There are two sides to Government procurement. The Department wants to achieve value for money but there is a possible negative knock-on effect for a local suppliers. Members of the Irish School Art Supply Federation came before this committee and they were very concerned about this. My colleague, Deputy Connaughton, will deal with that. Mr. Watt believes his Department has a good record and good and ambitious targets, and I am happy to hear that. Would he consider taking in the issue across the public service of procurement of professional services and medicine? I have said this several times. The Department of Health has shown its incompetence at negotiating good prices in this area. It seems slightly afraid to tackle the drug suppliers because they are getting grants and are here providing employment. Would the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform consider taking on the purchase of medicines to get better value for money for the taxpayer and the issue of professional fees? Is it on Mr. Watt's horizon to do both of those?

Mr. Robert Watt

There is €9 billion of spend on current goods and services and approximately €6 billion of addressable spend that is brought within the ambit of the new office Mr. Quinn is leading. Professional fees across the board would be part of that and Mr. Quinn has a category council element in the team which is examining them. The drugs are a much more substantial piece, as the Deputy knows. Under the current structure that is a matter for the HSE and the Department of Health. We have volunteered the expertise of the professionals we have within the Open Government Partnership, OGP, to assist the Department of Health. Some of the contracts will be up for negotiation in the summer and we have offered to work with and assist the Department of Health with them.

We must do much better in this space. We discussed this previously and said we agreed that there is not enough generic drug substitution going on. There is much happening this year but the price we are paying for patent drugs is too high. The reference price is above the EU average and I do not know why. We are happy to work with the Department of Health and the HSE and I agree there is scope to get better value for money and we will pursue that.

Mr. Watt has heard me suggest this before and I agree it should be done. However, HSE-funded hospitals are still not using generic drugs but branded ones. Whatever about forcing GPs to prescribe generic drugs, how has the simple message not got down to the HSE-run hospitals to use the generic drugs? It is absolutely crazy.

Mr. Robert Watt

There is no excuse. If there is a generic substitution with which we are happy, there is no reason we should spend taxpayers' money on patent drugs in public hospitals or anywhere else.

Mr. Watt said he offered his assistance. He should be telling the Secretary General that this will happen because the weight of public support is behind the Department in getting control of this and it should not be a question of whether the Secretary General feels like taking up Mr. Watt's offer. We are fully agreed on the need to achieve more savings generally. After Mr. Watt's last visit here he sent us a detailed note on his target for savings, which was €305 million for the year, and he hopes to achieve €1 billion in 2016.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

Mr. Watt sent us that letter on 12 November 2013. Could he send us an update? How much of that €305 million target was realised? Mr. Watt probably knows that figure, but could he send us the detail? We have just finished talking about IMF fiscal transparency. Mr. Watt abolished the review committee that independently verified savings, which we had under the Croke Park agreement. That committee reported to this and another Oireachtas committee. That gave public comfort and transparency as opposed to departmental officials saying what they had achieved. Why has Mr. Watt abolished the public, independent accounting or verification under the Haddington Road agreement?

Mr. Robert Watt

The Croke Park agreement was an enabler. It enabled transformation to take place across the system. It did not have the variety of specific measures that the Haddington Road agreement has. Most of the savings we are delivering now, such as pay cuts of €220 million, the abolition of twilight payments, the suspension of supervision and substitution in education, reductions in overtime rates and increases in hours worked, are specific measures which we have delivered. We are very happy to account to Deputy Fleming and this committee, and for each Secretary General to account for his or her portion of it. The previous system was appropriate for the Croke Park agreement but was not relevant for the Haddington Road agreement because the savings under the latter are set out and embedded in the Vote allocations for Departments. For this year we have further savings of approximately €450 million in pay and they are allocated across the different Votes. The appropriate mechanism is for this committee and other committees to set out a budget for each pay item and ascertain whether they have delivered and, if not, why.

If a Department achieves a payroll reduction of €50 million at the end of the year, we have no way of knowing whether that is due to staff retirements or the Haddington Road agreement. There are specific issues in the Haddington Road agreement. Can Mr. Watt give us the breakdown of that €305 million for 2013, the payroll savings in those Departments that were due to the Haddington Road agreement and those that were not?

Mr. Robert Watt

We will set out the contribution of the different elements of the Haddington Road agreement in overall terms and provide the Vote allocation. There are pay savings from the Haddington Road agreement and offsetting measures elsewhere, for example we may have reduced the cost of substitution and supervision in the school system but increased the number of special needs assistants, SNAs, and teachers. We can do a gross figure on the offset and a net figure to show the contribution from the Haddington Road agreement, the offsets and the bottom line. We can set it out in as much detail-----

Mr. Watt is making my point. He is explaining that it is complicated in each Department and that there are gross and net figures, savings and estimates. All the more reason for there to be an independent verification. When this committee does its report we should recommend that there be an independent verification mechanism. I would not even have to have this conversation if-----

Mr. Robert Watt

The Croke Park agreement oversight mechanism would not have been able to answer the Deputy's question. We and the Accounting Officers would be able to provide the information.

Does Mr. Watt not see any benefit in the independent verification of €1 billion in savings?

Mr. Robert Watt

Is that not the role of this committee and part of what we do here?

Was the independent verification process of the Croke Park agreement a waste of time and money then? I am missing something.

Mr. Robert Watt

They are different agreements. The Croke Park agreement was an enabling agreement.

I do not know what that means.

Mr. Robert Watt

It did not specify that we would cut pay by a certain percentage for people earning more than €65,000, cut overtime from 1.5% to 1.25%, suspend increments, abolish twilight allowances-----

That was all done by the Government before the Croke Park agreement.

Mr. Robert Watt

No.

Mr. Robert Watt

The Croke Park agreement came in, as the Deputy knows, to stabilise the situation after one of the pay cuts back then. It was an enabling agreement to get co-operation for changes and reforms that took place. The Haddington Road agreement has those features and more, but has more specific details. We have an oversight group involving representatives of trade unions and management where we examine issues and if there is a problem we try to put it through-----

That is not cost verification.

Mr. Robert Watt

No. We have an open mind on this. The best thing is for us to provide the information and we will be happy to talk subsequent to that. If the Deputy thinks at that stage that having some further process that could provide greater reassurance that the Departments are delivering I would be happy to engage with him. We did not feel on this occasion that it is required and we established a process with which we are happy but we are happy to have the debate.

Through PeoplePoint the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will take responsibility for the processing of all the HR and pension and shared services.

Is there an Accounting Officer for PeoplePoint? If so, will he or she be responsible for everything that happens if there is an issue with payrolls? For example, the Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice and Equality is responsible for the payroll of gardaí, prison officers, etc. A significant proportion of the departmental budget relates to payroll. Who will be the Accounting Officer for that?

Mr. Robert Watt

This relates to the Civil Service. PeoplePoint will take the prison officers and civil servants from the justice Vote but not others. It would be the Accounting Officer. At the moment, I am the Accounting Officer for PeoplePoint and we are in effect consolidating activities, which previously were fragmented and diffused across the system, in PeoplePoint. From next year, we will have a new director of the office who will be responsible for PeoplePoint and other shared services initiatives that we are expanding and that individual will be the Accounting Officer then. The system is that we will provide letters of assurance from the Accounting Officer, which is me at the moment, to each Accounting Officer across Departments in respect of activities we are carrying out on their behalf. We have to provide that assurance and we have to do various auditing to ensure they are happy with that. That is the way it has been set up. We will have to go through all the normal processes to ensure that financial controls are in place and so on and we have to do a specific assurance for the Secretaries General. That is the structure-----

In other words, Accounting Officers are responsible for the payroll in their Departments at the moment. Under the new arrangements two Accounting Officers will be responsible-----

Mr. Robert Watt

There will be one-----

------Mr. Watt will issue a letter of assurance. We are, therefore, heading into a situation where more people will be accountable-----

Mr. Robert Watt

No, now I am the Accounting Officer for the administration and activities of PeoplePoint and I am responsible for the service we provide to Accounting Officers in each of the Departments. There is only Accounting Officer for each quantum of spending; there are not two. It is a little more complex. Large organisations in the private sector and other public sectors across the developed world have moved in this direction of consolidating services for a number of reasons: first to save money but, second, to improve the information provided to managers so that we can have a whole-of-government approach to, and perspective on, what we are doing. That is part of our move towards a more unified Civil Service. This is absolutely essential. There are some bumps and challenges along the way and ensuring we have the proper accountability mechanisms is one of those challenges but we are confident that it will be fine. I know the Comptroller and Auditor General is doing a review as part of the review of the 2013 accounts and we will be happy to work with his team on that.

I refer to the PPP issue, which Mr. Watt discussed with the committee last October when the current report had just been issued. I asked a number of questions, which I would like to revisit. According to the report, there were outstanding commitments amounting to €4.2 billion across the Department of Education and Skills, the Courts Service, the OPW and National Roads Authority but the commitment to local authorities for wastewater services and treatment plants was not included because they come under a different auditor. In the letter Mr. Watt sent to the committee following that meeting, he referred to an Exchequer commitment of €685 million. Does this commitment remain or has that been paid and fully financed in respect of the various PPPs for water services involving local authorities?

Mr. Robert Watt

I need to check exactly on the figure.

I will not argue about the exact figure. Mr. Watt said €685 million.

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not know if it is of that magnitude. The issue is that the structure of PPPs for wastewater projects is different. It is more build, design, operate, BDO, than build, design, operate and finance and, therefore, the upfront capital costs are not embedded in the unitary charge. A sum of €600 million sounds about right.

Who is carrying that debt or has it been incurred?

Mr. Robert Watt

The local authorities pay for the BDOs they have entered into.

The annual charge?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes. They have commitments until the end of the contract period for outstanding projects.

I assume that liability was on the State's balance sheet when they were run by local authorities. Will that be transferred from the State's balance sheet to Irish Water's now?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes, and the debt as well.

How much has been taken off the national debt and handed to Irish Water? Does Mr. Watt know or does he need to come back to us?

Mr. Robert Watt

I will come back to the Deputy on that. There is a figure for the assets and liabilities that are being transferred from the local authority sector to Irish Water and we can confirm that for the Deputy.

Given that there was a large expenditure commitment, I would like to know if the national debt has been magicked down by €500 million. Mr. Watt will come back and tell us.

Mr. Robert Watt

I would not use the term "magicked down" but if it was on the consolidated balance sheet of the general government sector and we commercialise that, as we are doing with Irish Water, then, yes, it has.

Mr. Watt can understand my question.

Mr. Robert Watt

I do.

We will come back to it. A few PPPs were mentioned in the report. I am pleased a penalty charge has been provided for if the Central Criminal Courts complex is unavailable for any period due to flooding of 1% or €204,000. The Department will save 1% of the annual payment and that is good. Aside from the non-availability for that one day, surely there were knock-on costs and delays. When the staff returned the following day, they had to pick up the day's work that was missed and move on. Is there a mechanism to address the knock-on costs that were incurred?

Mr. Robert Watt

The contract would have been fairly clear about what non-availability means, the costs of that and who bears them. We can certainly pass that on to the OPW. The Courts Service runs that PPP. I will come back to the Deputy.

Mr. Watt might send us a brief note.

Mr. Robert Watt

It was interesting reading the Comptroller and Auditor General's report because I had not been aware of the scope within the 25 year contracts to go back and benchmark and be more aggressive in terms of looking at the performance and managing the performance in a much more proactive way. I think the suggestion, which has been taken on board, that the NDFA would be more involved in the performance of the contracts and ensuring that opportunities are available is good. People will see much more activity there and being proactive around-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That was not part of earlier PPPs but it is something that has come in in the later ones. Certainly, it is something to be welcomed.

I refer to the PPP for the National Convention Centre. Treasury Holdings, which is in liquidation, is the owner of that property. The OPW is the contracting authority and the venue continues to operate even though the owner is in NAMA. Mr. Watt is the Accounting Officer for all Government expenditure. The OPW had a commitment to pay so much per annum to Treasury Holdings - the figures are in the report - for the centre. The company then went into NAMA. Most companies that went into NAMA received a debt write-down of approximately 40%. That write-down is provided through money we put into the banks to make up for the write-downs of loans transferred to NAMA. What discussions have Mr. Watt and the OPW had with the agency? The company's liabilities were written down by the banks, which were paid for by the taxpayer. Am I correct that none of that has been passed on to OPW?

Sometimes I know the answers to questions before I ask them but I do not know the answer before I ask this question. Is there a possibility that the owner of that property received a substantial write-down on its loans and the taxpayer continues to pay the full annual payment for the centre and helps to write off the loans?

Mr. Robert Watt

We will need to check with the NDFA on this, but my understanding is that the company, the PP Co, the private partnership company, is a separate entity from Treasury Holdings. When they set up a public private partnership, they set up a separate company. While Treasury Holdings is in NAMA, I do not think the PP Co is in NAMA and I do not think there is any write-down of debt. We are discharging the full-----

We are discharging.

Mr. Robert Watt

-----unitary payments because the company is still going, the convention centre is still-----

The liquidator is still running the company.

Mr. Robert Watt

----- trading, but I do not think a liquidator is running the National Convention Centre or the PP Co. That is a separate entity from Treasury Holdings.

The property company, the landlord-----

Mr. Robert Watt

I need to be careful unless I say something that is not correct, but I do not think they were the only investors in that convention centre - Treasury Holdings. I think there were others.

Mr. Robert Watt

There is a separate company. As far as I recollect, they are not in NAMA.

Maybe Mr. Watt will-----

Mr. Robert Watt

We are still discharging our amount of, I think, €25 million or €30 million a year in unitary payments.

The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

Treasury Holdings went into liquidation during 2012. The Treasury Holdings shareholding in SDCCD [Spencer Dock Convention Centre Dublin Limited, which is the special purpose vehicle set up for this] is currently held by the liquidators.

How much of it is-----

Mr. Robert Watt

If one thinks of the PP Co, there is an equity component, mezzanine finance-----

Can Mr. Watt come back with a note?

Mr. Robert Watt

-----and senior debt. It is not all-----

Perhaps it is as clean as a whistle and Mr. Watt might come back and give us a note on it.

Mr. Robert Watt

Absolutely.

I wish to cover public procurement. We received a submission from the Irish School Arts Supply Federation in the SME sector outlining its concerns over current Government procurement policy. Mr. Watt's opening statement indicated we aimed to save €500 million over three years. While everyone hopes that can be achieved, we would be somewhat concerned over the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises. How much of that €500 million has been saved so far?

Mr. Robert Watt

We had a target of €127 million for this year, for 2014, so we are confident we will save around €100 million or so of that saving for this year. We are fairly confident we will make the savings in respect of 2014. In effect, the Office of Government Procurement has been established and it is now procuring more and more of the categories - of the types - of spend for parts of the system. It is now in effect implementing its work programme. We say €100 million will be the savings for this year and then over the three year period, so by the end of 2016 we have targeted savings of €500 million.

As the Deputy will be aware taking money out of procurement is going to have an impact on companies that were previously providing those services that might be getting less. Some of them may not win the new contract. It might be just around renewal of contract. There will be concerns here. There will be a lot of noise around some of the implications of this. I have not seen the submission the Deputy has received, so I am at a disadvantage. I do not know what they are saying to the Deputy.

What we are trying to do all the time - we did it with circular 10/10, which we published in August 2010, and we have done it now through Mr. Quinn's office - is to provide more support to SMEs to enable them to compete for projects. In terms of the stationery contract, which I think might be the subject of some of the correspondence the committee has received, we broke it into four lots. We have not gone out with a big contract. We broke it into lots. We are using more framework contracts. We are providing more assistance and supports training for SMEs in order that they can access contracts.

We are mindful of the types of representations committee members are receiving. It is impossible to make savings in any part of the public sector without there being difficulties and without a constituency of some description being discommoded. We are trying to work as closely as we can with the different groups. We have had many discussions with IBEC and the Small Firms Association, the different representative groups and the different groups within sectors as well. We are mindful of it and we are on top of it. We are happy to work with them in any way we can.

Mr. Watt referred to €100 million saved so far and he has acknowledged that there will be difficulties with the groups involved in that. If many of these SMEs go to the wall, while the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform might save €100 million, does the Department of Social Protection not have to pay that amount on the other side?

Mr. Robert Watt

I will ask Mr. Paul Quinn to come in. In any different sector, businesses might be dependent on public sector contracts for a certain share of their business. We do not know, but in some cases that they might be so dependent that if they lose a contract, the business will close or they will lose jobs. That might happen in cases. In anything we do where we have had to reduce spending or close the fiscal deficit, any of those initiatives has the potential to impact upon demand in the economy and on jobs and have a negative economic effect. That negative effect can be seen in impact on tax revenues or it can be seen in the impact on people who lose their jobs and are unemployed. There can potentially be a negative effect, but we are trying to manage it as best we can.

When we discussed this previously at this committee, we mentioned that this programme will involve difficulties. However, as we mentioned to Deputy Fleming, we all know the State traditionally has been procuring in an inefficient way. We are determined to get value for money for taxpayers' money and to procure in the most professional way possible. As part of what Mr. Quinn is doing with his office, we are professionalising procurement across the system. We are ensuring we have the best possible expertise in negotiating the best possible contracts. This will have an impact and it will impact on certain businesses. We are doing everything we can to minimise the effects, but I am not going to say there will be no effect because that would be untrue to say.

I will come back to the value for money element of it shortly. With the way it is going about it at the moment, the Department may achieve its savings, which would be a success for that Department. However, is there consultation with the Departments of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Social Protection to consider the wider picture? I get the impression - Mr. Watt can correct me if I am wrong - that the Department is determined to save its €500 million and it does not care who goes under the bus. Am I wrong in that?

Mr. Robert Watt

We are not saying we do not care who goes under the bus. Of course we have had discussions with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation about seeing if the Enterprise Ireland support agencies can help companies. Maybe Mr. Quinn would wish to answer.

Mr. Paul Quinn

Perhaps I should intervene at this stage. The Deputy raised a number of issues and perhaps I can give a bit of a flavour. First, in relation to the proportion of spend we are targeting to save each year, it is of the order of 2.5% to 3%. Yes, there will be winners and losers in that regard, but the winners will create employment and create jobs. The losers will have to contend with loss of business. There is no doubt in relation to that.

We are looking at this thing holistically, though. We are working on a number of different themes and part of that is around engagement. We have set up a high-level group in conjunction with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to drive and enable SME access to public procurement. We are working with a number of agencies that sit within the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in that regard, including InterTradeIreland and Enterprise Ireland. I chair a group that meets regularly to drive initiatives in that regard.

The thrust we are working on are things like information and education. For example, in 2013 we ran two very large meet the buyer events where SME businesses could meet public sector buyers and try to understand public procurement better in order that they could compete and win business from the public sector. We had about 1,200 suppliers at the event in Dublin and we had about 800 suppliers at the event in Belfast. We are getting SME engagement with regard to looking at how to win public procurement.

As we centralise more, there is always the risk that people feel crowded out. We are working with bodies like Enterprise Ireland and InterTradeIreland to help educate suppliers around building consortia in order that smaller businesses can come together and win the larger offerings that the State is putting out to the marketplace. We are working with the Competition Authority as well to keep everyone safe in that regard.

There is a lot happening here in terms of the education front. This year we will be transposing into law the new European directives which are very business friendly and very SME friendly. They will come into force next year. As part of that, we have engaged with industry.

We have set up a working group as part of our group with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to engage with the Small Firms Association, SFA, Chambers Ireland, IBEC, etc., to get their input into how we can better shape procurement. We want to ensure that small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, can be successful in terms of public procurement. We are also changing and investing in our systems to standardise more and remove some of the bureaucracy. The Secretary General mentioned Department of Finance circular 10/10 on promoting SME access. We are in the process of reviewing that circular against the backdrop of the new EU directives to determine which measures we can accelerate so as to reduce barriers for SMEs and enable access for them to compete for business in the public space. We expect to be in a position to produce a new circular in the next one to two months. This will give guidance and set rules for the public sector so as to enable SMEs to compete for business better.

Mr. Quinn stated that there would be winners and losers in this process. I have no problem with that when there is change, but the SME sector is afraid that the winner will be a large, global company with unbelievable resources that can make a crazily low bid for a public procurement contract, blowing everyone else out of the water. That winner would not give a hang for Irish jobs and so on. The Department is focused on making savings. Consider the Irish School Arts Supply Federation, which supplies small schools. It cannot compete at that level. Mr. Quinn mentioned helping SMEs to understand better how public procurement works. Understanding is not the issue. Rather, they cannot tender competitively. How will the Department make it possible for them?

What quality controls does the Department have in place in respect of the services being procured? The arts supply federation works with many schools and has built up commitments and relationships. A school knows it will get value for money and quality and there is an after-sales element. Although schools may get the same products and services more cheaply from now on, what else will they get?

Mr. Paul Quinn

The Deputy asked a number of questions. As I understand it, his point is that the offerings will be so large that SMEs cannot compete for them. It is important to reflect on the available data from 2011, even though they are not fantastic. They indicate that less than 3% of the tenders for goods and services are above the threshold. This means that, of the amounts being tendered, 97% are less than €125,000. A significant amount of business that the State puts into the marketplace is relatively small. The threshold for works is much larger at €4 million. The State will continue putting a significant amount of small business into the marketplace.

I disagree in part with the Deputy's comments on the hunger for information. Much of the sector's feedback to us has been to the effect that many bidders need information on how public sector procurement and how to answer the exam questions. Public procurement is predictable and asks standardised questions. Through bodies like InterTradeIreland and Enterprise Ireland, our organisation provides direct support to businesses in terms of education.

The Deputy's last question was on quality control. As part of the roll-out of my new office, we are standardising our contracts more. We will also put in place more standardised processes for managing all suppliers and holding their feet to the fire in terms of performance. We have discussed performance under another guise today. We need to manage all of our suppliers to a good standard of quality. We are not simply focused on price. Our guidance to the public sector is to evaluate tenders on what is called the most economically advantageous price. This brings into play both price and quality. It is not a question of compromising quality in any way.

If SMEs grouped together to tender for a job and a much larger organisation tendered at a much reduced price, would the office even investigate why it could be that cheap?

Mr. Paul Quinn

That is a good question. We encourage consortia and they are winning more business in the marketplace. If someone tenders at a significantly lower price than the average, we investigate. Under the guidance from the EU, we are obliged to investigate abnormally low tenders. We must be satisfied that the supplier can provide the goods and services at the prices indicated. We must go through a process of due diligence.

What is the trigger? How low must the price be before the office suspects there is a problem or believes it should be investigated?

Mr. Paul Quinn

There is no specific formula. It depends on what is abnormally low and how competitive the markets are. Where there is a significant deviation from the mean, most contracting authorities investigate through an abnormally low tender process. In this way, they protect themselves and ensure that the goods and services are quality and the prices can be sustained throughout the contract.

With all due respect, that answer is vague - the office may or may not investigate a tender and it depends on the product and who is involved. Is the office charged with that investigation? Who in the Department ensures checks and balances?

Mr. Paul Quinn

The Office of Government Procurement is being rolled out. At this time, our amount of the State's spend coverage is approximately 5% of the total. By the end of the transition process, which should take most of this year, our coverage should be approximately 60%. The Deputy may feel my answer is vague, but much of this matter is comprehended by guidance that we have issued to the current set of public sector procurers. As they number in the thousands, it is difficult to be specific or granular in setting rules on, for example, abnormally low tenders.

If an SME loses a tender due to an extremely low price and the SME does not know the formula, how to report the issue or how the process is policed, for wont of a better word, when will that certainty of protocol be provided to SMEs?

Mr. Paul Quinn

This is analogous to what the Secretary General mentioned. Accounting Officers are accountable for their spend, the contracts they award and the performance of same. As regards goods and services, that responsibility will transfer to my office and me during the course of this year. Currently, each public sector entity is charged with responsibility for ensuring value for money and that contracts perform. Those entities investigate abnormally low tenders, as their feet are being held to the fire in terms of accountability if a contract is awarded and does not perform.

The office is rolling out. Mr. Quinn used to be with the OPW but has since moved to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Are many people in his office working on this issue?

Mr. Paul Quinn

On which?

Public procurement.

Mr. Paul Quinn

The current staff complement is approximately 55, which incudes 40 staff who transferred to the Department from the National Procurement Service, 25 of whom are engaged in procurement work. As the new office is rolled out, the dimensioning of the procurement aspect will be approximately 140 staff to manage the 60% spend. We are recruiting people from within the public service to bring those skills into the centre and new Office of Government Procurement.

Do any of the 25 people currently engaged in procurement have SME experience?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes. The Office of Government Procurement procures in areas ranging from energy to stationery. The stationery and janitorial supplies contracts are managed by my office. There is a mix of large and small procurements that are managed from the current Office of Government Procurement.

There are people currently working in that office who have SME experience and understand, from a business perspective, how this works?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes. The real value that procurement people bring to a process is their understanding of the market in terms of structure, the commercial models involved, competitiveness and how fragmented or concentrated it is. They add value in figuring out how to work with the market to deliver the best possible value for money for the State. Some markets, such as the energy market, are very concentrated and include five or ten players. There are between 20 and 30 players in the telecoms market. In terms of cleaning services, there is a mix of national and local companies. It is a lot of horses for courses. A large piece of the responsibility in terms of procurement is around understanding the markets in respect of the goods and services being purchased and then tailoring the approach to the market to get the best value for the State.

Would it be possible for Mr. Quinn to provide the committee with information on how many of the 25 staff concerned have SME experience, having worked in small business?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Is the Deputy seeking the number of staff who have worked in small business?

Mr. Paul Quinn

The majority of the staff within the current office are from the OPW. Some of them are civil servants. We have in the past recruited people who previously worked in business. I can supply that information to the committee.

I would like to know how many of the 25 staff concerned have SME experience which would give them a better understanding of what small businesses are currently going through.

What comfort can Mr. Quinn give this morning to SMEs and the Irish Art Supply Federation that their concerns are being listened to and that they will be involved in the new process as it is rolled out over the next three to six months?

Mr. Paul Quinn

In terms of engagement, a working group comprising the key representative associations for business, including IBEC, SFA, and Chambers Ireland, has been set up by my office. It is the mechanism through which we are currently working with industry to give a voice to the changes that we know we have to make to public procurement. We want to make these changes to enable SME businesses to be successful because we know that ultimately they are the engine room of the economic recovery.

I thank Mr. Quinn for his responses.

Mr Robert Watt

Perhaps I might add to what Mr. Quinn had to say. As stated by Mr. Quinn, we are happy to meet with groups that approach members about their concerns and to explain to them what we are doing. However, if a live competition is under way we need to be careful. In general, we are happy to meet with any group and to listen to their concerns and to explain what we are trying to do.

I welcome Mr. Watt and his officials. It would appear, as most members have already left the meeting, that they are doing a great job. I would like later to ask Mr. Watt about what he characterised in his opening statement as significant gains in productivity across the system based on the Haddington Road agreement and its previous enabler, the Croke Park agreement.

First, I would like to discuss with Mr. Watt what I regard as the largest potential public-private partnership in this country for many years, possibly the biggest ever, namely, the Strategic Investment Fund. While it was not mentioned in Mr. Watt's opening statement, I understand the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform may be taking the lead in this regard, with the involvement of the NTMA and the Department of Finance. As I understand it, this is a €6.8 billion fund, previously the National Pensions Reserve Fund, which has been turned into an investment fund and is seeking commercial investments from the private sector. It is hoped that this €6.8 billion will be matched by a further €6 billion or €7 billion of private money. It is proposed - this process may already have started - that private equity funds in Dublin and London will seek commercial investments. That is fair enough.

I am interested in hearing whether any thought has been given to where this money will be spent, or if this process will be random in terms of the commercial investments arising. Has any consideration been given to investment in parts of this country that are stagnating? If, for argument's sake, there is some truth to the idea that there is a slight recovery in Dublin and not in other parts of the country, given that this is potentially the largest stimulus fund this country has ever seen and will see for years, has consideration been given to diverting some of this money, as a critical policy measure, towards those parts of the country that are stagnating and in some cases regressing when it comes to unemployment? Given the amount of money involved, has any consideration been given to that possibility?

Mr. Watt referred in his opening statement to past public private partnerships, PPPs. Many of them were strategic projects targeted around the country for various infrastructural reasons. At that time there was a different mindset and thought process involved in terms of the targeting of the billions involved to different parts of the country. I have a suspicion that the €6.8 billion in this case and the money that may come in by way of private sector investments will not be targeted country-wide. Perhaps Mr. Watt would respond.

Mr Robert Watt

There are a number of aspects to the stimulus plan, including the €3.2 billion of Exchequer-funded projects such as school and health initiatives, energy projects and road maintenance projects, and then the larger PPP projects about which the Deputy spoke and with which he is familiar. On foot of the concessionary contract for the lottery, the Minister announced further projects on budget day. There is a regional spread to those projects. The Deputy is correct that the investment fund is €6.8 billion and was previously the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, which invested globally in property, equities and bonds. The new fund is managed by the NTMA with the involvement of the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but the latter is not the lead Department.

Perhaps Mr. Watt would repeat who is involved.

Mr Robert Watt

The NTMA, the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I am happy to answer the Deputy's questions on the basis that my Department is involved. Mr. Corrigan of the NTMA might be able to give the committee more information on this on the next occasion he appears before it. The fund is being reoriented towards investment in projects in Ireland that can provide a return in terms of jobs and a commercial return to the fund. It is important that we strike the right balance between projects.

The market may not fund projects because there could be uncertainty or where it is a start-up activity; it could be tricky to identify projects.

That is fair enough. I understand that.

Mr. Robert Watt

A Bill is being prepared and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, will publish it around Easter. It will set out the mandate and there will be an obligation to develop an investment strategy which must listen to the views of Government. Based on what I have seen, there is no regional angle or perspective to this. The job is to invest in projects with an economic and jobs impact and which are commercial. As far as I am aware at this stage, there is no regional impact consideration.

Should there be?

Mr. Robert Watt

This is something to debate. When we examine Exchequer funding and our public-private partnerships, we have regard to a spread from the political world in the way in which money is allocated.

That was the case in the past.

Mr. Robert Watt

We have an independent commercial fund investing in projects so is there a role for it to take account of a regional remit or balance? I have not thought about that and it could be debated. Based on the evidence we have, there is a two-tier economy emerging, with the greater Dublin area different and all the evidence suggesting it is out of recession and growing. One may argue this means there are great opportunities elsewhere, in parts of the country that have not moved as quickly out of recession, as property values are lower and opportunities may be cheaper. I have not reflected on that, to be honest. I do not see a reason a fund oriented to jobs activity in Ireland cannot have regard to a regional spread or balance.

The witness knows the basic figures for foreign direct investment, for example. Dublin, Cork and Galway get approximately 82% of that, which is a huge proportion when considering the country as a whole.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

There is an immense disparity between the three urban areas and the rest of the country.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

This is something that could amount to approximately €12 billion or €13 billion but nobody has given any thought to any regional aspect. It is a potential deficit.

Mr. Robert Watt

I may be doing this a disservice. I do not see it from the perspective of the legislation but that is not to suggest-----

This has started already.

Mr. Robert Watt

There is some activity.

The Minister for Finance has given the presentations and stated we are open for business, or essentially, to bring it on.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

Mr. Watt has been around the financial world long enough and he knows equity funds do not really take public policy into consideration. We have given them the job of finding these commercial investments, and nobody has taken into account the fact we may be looking not only at a two-tier economy but a two-tier recovery, which is what I want to avoid. This legislation should try to avoid that as well. Some may argue that if we go down the line, it makes some sense, but would we block some decent investments if some of the money was earmarked for the areas suffering worst from the recession? At the very least we need to start talking about that.

Mr. Robert Watt

My understanding of the legislation is that the Minister for Finance will input into the overall strategy and focus but individual commercial decisions are for the body set up within the National Treasury Management Agency. There is a role for public policy and the Government in setting broad goals. I do not see a reason there cannot be regard to the regional impact of the investment or the types of projects and the impact they have.

That is fair enough.

Mr. Robert Watt

That would have to be reflected in some mandate for the people responsible for making decisions.

Mr. Watt is not the first person to which I have thrown this question. I have asked some current and former IDA officials about this and they have argued that money should be earmarked for the regions. Their opinion is based on the fact that there are people within the IDA who do not examine regionalisation the way they should, and as long as we have these figures for the country as a whole, everything is fine. All I am asking Departments to do is consider the figures, as 82% of investment is going to those three urban areas. We are talking about what could be the only stimulus package this country sees for many years and there is a risk that the areas which have not seen investment in the past ten, 15 or 20 years will be excluded, as everything almost automatically goes to the urban areas. It is a problem that seeps into social issues in this country, as everything done about the spend of the Exchequer has a bearing on these other issues. We must think about this before the legislation is published. It is a basic point.

There may be another way to come at this. Is there a way of substituting Exchequer funding? The Department is examining capital and how Exchequer funding is being spent across the board in different Departments over the next few years. Is there a way to substitute some spending across the board into those areas and the parts of the country which have not received funding to date?

Mr. Robert Watt

It is an interesting point. In the past, when more of the investment was funded by Structural Funds and the European Regional Development Fund, there was a regional element. There was much more emphasis on the different regions, with the Border, midlands and western region being one and the south and eastern region being another. With the capital programme there is not necessarily a clear breakdown. We are doing a review of capital priorities from now until 2020, taking in what we should spend, what should be the priority projects, etc. Perhaps as part of that we could consider if there is any sense of the regional split of the existing spend, as I do not know off-hand what it would be. It would vary over years, and some dominant projects may skew figures in a particular direction. As part of an overall review of capital priorities we could see if there could be more of a regional angle in the next five or six years.

An important task for us is to ensure public-private partnerships, commercial semi-State and Exchequer investment dovetail with the new fund's investment. There should be a consistency, and there are roles involving the Exchequer, jobs and activities. I take on board the comments.

Mr. Watt knows from where I am coming.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

The point is that the gap is widening between Dublin and the two other urban areas and the rest of the country. That must be taken into consideration in the drafting of the legislation, and we must examine how and where the money is being spent. I am not so sure anybody in the Department has done that yet.

Mr. Robert Watt

The Deputy is right. I am not aware of such a consideration of the regional dimension. The focus has been on projects to generate economic activity in the country, jobs and commercial initiatives. The Minister for Finance hopes to publish the legislation soon and there will be a chance to examine the matter then. I will feed back the comments.

Mr. Robert Watt

When the Bill is published there will be an opportunity to debate it and table amendments.

I want to ask about what was characterised as "significant gains" in productivity across the system. As the witness mentioned, people have had new working arrangements imposed on them, including longer working hours, new rosters and standardised arrangements for annual and sick leave. What did Mr. Watt mean by that and where have there been gains in productivity across the sectors?

Mr. Robert Watt

We can measure output or outcomes as well as inputs. For example, there is the third level sector.

We know the number of students going through every year and we know how much is being allocated in terms of lecture hours or inputs. We know the costs to the Exchequer versus what we are getting out of it in terms of pure volume. There is obviously a quality issue which is a matter for third level.

If one looks at the health system, the pages we have are on the following: the number of people who work in the system; the cost of the system, which has come down; and the increase in activity, where one can see the number of procedures, operations and the number of people who were seen. Massive increases in productivity have taken place over the last three or four years. The Minister, Deputy James Reilly, has mentioned this on various occasions at various committees. We measure whenever we can. The Deputy can also see the different measures for the Garda, such as the reductions in numbers and the various measures of its performance.

Across the system one can see that we have downsized very dramatically, yet we are providing more services and dealing with more people all the time. In the social welfare area, since 2008 and 2009 several hundred thousand more people have turned up seeking support, be it income or job support, but there has not been a dramatic increase in that Department's administrative budget or the numbers. Across the measurement of outputs or outcomes, when one looks at the inputs one can see gains in productivity. Those gains have been facilitated by necessity, that we just do not have the money, so people have got on with just delivering more even though they do not have more resources. There are more hours, changes in rosters and changes in work practices. The changes in the rosters for the Garda, for example, mean there are more gardaí rostered on Thursday, Friday and Saturday when they are needed on the streets compared to the position in the past. That is an enormous change. Some figures show there is a 20% to 25% increase in the number of gardaí visible on the streets on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Changes such as that are having a big impact. We are working as much we can with colleagues to see how much further we can go.

We challenge the notion that they have been imposed on the system. Okay, there has been a sense of imposition inasmuch as we have reduced the numbers of people, so those who remain have had to do more. There have been changes in work rosters, more hours and changes in sick leave, annual leave and so forth. Ultimately, there were formal negotiations and we ultimately got agreement with the 27 unions through the Haddington Road agreement. Whether they were imposed or negotiated to a happy conclusion depends on how one looks at these things.

Mr. Watt mentioned education, health and policing.

Mr. Robert Watt

There is also the local authorities and justice.

Is there any sector where there have not been productivity gains?

Mr. Robert Watt

Some sectors are harder to measure than others. Take the example of the Civil Service. What is the output? It depends on the area. The Revenue Commissioners are improving collection rates and dealing with more black economy issues-----

Let me ask a different question. Where it is easy to measure, is there any sector where Mr. Watt has seen declines?

Mr. Robert Watt

Everywhere has been on a diet and starved of resources, but the Deputy will see that there have been improvements right across the system. It is hard to compare. How does one compare the job we do in our Department with the job done by somebody in the Department of Social Protection or in the Revenue Commissioners? How does one compare what the Civil Service does with what teachers or gardaí do? It is difficult.

I agree. I am playing devil's advocate here.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes, I realise that.

Mr. Watt is effectively making the case that our public sector needed trimming. It needed to be made more lean-----

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

-----and its outputs are far better as a result of that process across the board. The results are there for everybody to see. That is effectively the case Mr. Watt is making.

Mr. Robert Watt

Absolutely. The case I am making is that because of the financial crisis we had to cut back dramatically, and we have done that. However, that is not related to a commensurate reduction in the output of the services. We have managed to increase the volume of service.

I understand that.

Mr. Robert Watt

That is a very impressive achievement across the board. I am sure the Deputy sees that all the time too, when he is interacting with parts of the public service. The numbers are not there anymore. People have seen a large number of reductions, budgets have been cut yet the system has been sustained. Of course there are problems, but the system has been sustained and in many places we have managed to increase the output. I particularly mention the much maligned HSE. The committee will have the opportunity to talk to its representatives the next time they appear before it, but if one looks at the basic data in terms of the increase in the number of procedures, the basic outputs and the inputs, it is a very impressive improvement.

Deputies know plenty of gardaí, nurses and teachers and they might not agree with Mr. Watt. I have a different question.

Mr. Robert Watt

I am not saying that we have reached the limits or that there is not more to do.

That was my next question.

Mr. Robert Watt

We are not saying that at all.

Can more be squeezed out of this system in Mr. Watt's opinion?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

That is the question people would ask. If it has been so successful, and we have seen those gains across the board and measured them, how much more is there to get out of the system?

Mr. Robert Watt

I believe we must continue improving every year and we must say that. We must have targets whereby we will improve by 1.5%, 2% or 2.5% each year. We must have clear targets for seeking output improvements. Consider the example of digitalisation within the Civil Service and moving from paper applications or engaging with people through traditional means or channels to using digital and portals. There is enormous scope there for greater integration across the system to share data more effectively, so we do not keep asking people for the same data and do not have large systems in terms of communicating it in a cumbersome way, but have a much more integrated system. I think we can make enormous strides there both in improving how people interact with us and improving how we work the system in terms of the number of people we have doing clerical and administrative jobs. There is enormous scope within the system for us to continue driving change and improving. We must do better in digitalisation and we have mentioned that we can do better in public procurement. We think we can squeeze more from the shared services agenda and we think we can improve in terms of better management of sick leave and see it in improved performance.

There is no doubt that we can do much more. Perhaps what we require now is a culture of continuous improvement, similar to what happens outside the public sector. Every year businesses have to continue to improve and drive down costs to maximise outputs. That is the culture we need. The challenge for us is how to incentivise all parts of the system to operate like that. However, we are not finished yet and it will be an ongoing challenge for us to continue doing more.

I am not questioning that but we have an official governmental counterbalance called the Comptroller and Auditor General. Does he have an opinion on this with regard to the figures he has seen?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I do not wish to make a general pronouncement. I prefer to examine particular areas and report progress and whether there is further scope. I think I will reserve my-----

There is no area Mr. McCarthy has looked at specifically with regard to-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Where we see improvement in productivity?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There is certainly that.

That is all I am asking.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

On the general points the Secretary General has made about university or third level throughput and throughput in the health sector, there is certainly evidence of increased productivity, even in our own office.

Mr. Robert Watt

Even in that office?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Particularly in our own office.

Finally, with regard to the legislation, there is a list of five Bills. I must ask a question on the infamous Valuation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. It arises on the Order of Business every second week at this stage. The Taoiseach says in response that it is "in committee".

Mr. Robert Watt

Thankfully, somebody knows where it is.

What are the chances of this Bill ever getting out of the Seanad?

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not know. We are committed to getting it through. I do not know what the issues or obstacles are now or what the debate is. I have not been briefed recently on the ins and outs of it. The Deputy and I have spoken about this previously. We must modernise the valuation process. We are very much in favour of that and on the current timeframe we would complete the revaluation of the entire country by approximately 2030. Obviously, that is not good enough so we must improve. There are a number of very useful suggestions in the proposed legislation. I will find out the exact position and refer back to the Deputy.

Mr. Watt knows what it is about; it is about self-assessment. It makes changes with regard to appeals and so forth but the real issue is self assessment. I believe we must bring it to a conclusion one way or the other. There are too many Members asking, both inside and outside the Dáil, whether this is going to happen or not. The Government must make a decision whether it is going to introduce this system of self assessment in respect of rates and valuations.

It is something that we have dealt with on this committee and in regard to which the Secretary General has been very helpful.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

He was personally very helpful regarding the local government Bill, and its commercial rates section. He was extremely helpful. Some of the amendments that we introduced were adopted by the Government and it worked out very well. It was a good piece of legislation and a good section. I just think that we need to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Mr. Robert Watt

Let us come back to the Deputy. As is always the way with these, it needs a political sponsor so let me check exactly where we are in terms of that matter.

I thank Mr. Watt.

Deputy O'Donnell is next but he will be annoyed because I want to ask a question arising from what Deputies Deasy and Connaughton went into. I have listened to Mr. Quinn's description of the procurement process and to Mr. Watt who spoke about improvements and so on. Have I missed something? I think that we live in two different zones. I shall put the matter to Mr. Quinn first. When did he meet the Small Firms Association or any associations of that kind last?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Myself?

His section or whoever.

Mr. Paul Quinn

We set up a working group with the Small Firms Association, IBEC, etc. The last meeting took place roughly about three weeks ago, I think, when the groups met to discuss the new directives and also-----

I shall cut to the chase. The reason I asked him the question is that on 2 April it produced a document which it gave to each member of the Committee of Public Accounts. I have listened to what he had to say and was left with the impression that everything is hunky dory but there is room for change. As Mr. Watt always says, the section is moving on in a positive direction. The delegation has talked about this matter. I feel that I am not going into a policy area because I shall give him its comment on the matter. The Small Firms Association says "policy is now to effectively prohibit small companies from tendering for public contracts" but the organisation works with the Department on a working group. It further states that the policy "has the potential to eliminate small business from the tendering process" and one should operate "from a think small first perspective". Case examples were also given and one said:

When I tried to contact the person responsible for raising this tender to establish which instruments were included in "measuring instruments" – I didn’t receive the courtesy of a reply !

Our public sector procurement personnel should be much more helpful & co-operative to potential suppliers – especially small firms.

Case 5 referred to the most recent Irish Water tender where the company heard about it from a UK source in spite of the fact that it were attempting to get business from the State. Case 7 referred to attempts to convince the Department to streamline its definition of what it was buying. A firm stated the following opinion: "I know I am wasting my time trying to compete with this behaviour." In that case he is talking about the behaviour. Case 8 mentioned that one cannot be a tenderer unless one tenders for all of the products listed in the tender. Case 9 states that companies could not "meet the turnover requirements for larger tenders even though the company has the capability to meet all the requirements of the tender" and they were excluded. These are relevant cases in terms of what has been said.

Mr. Quinn gave me the idea that the Department is working directly with all of these organisations and things seem to be working okay but then the SFA highlights all of these cases. The SFA referred to Irish Water, in particular, regarding a number of issues that simply cause huge problems for the SME sector. When the SFA attempts to deal with the problem it meets the dead hand of bureaucracy and does not get anywhere. That situation has been reflected in a number of comments made here. I am not saying this; the Small Firms Association has said it. All of this is in direct contrast to what Mr. Quinn described to us at this hearing this morning.

I want to raise procurement issues with Mr. Watt. The SFA has outlined the procurement issues. Mr. Watt raised the issue of third level institutions. He also spoke about the cost to the Exchequer and productivity gains in answer to comments made by Deputy Deasy. What we have seen here, at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts, since we started in 2011, was a continuation of what I consider to be a scandal in terms of governance of various organisations in this country. One sees the same people on boards and the same chairman or make up in most organisations. It seems those organisations have not taken any interest in the direction that the Department is going in to improve governance.

What would Mr. Watt say to a third level organisation that has not changed its auditors or legal services for a dozen years? What would he say to a third level organisation that spent €21 million on such services in a five-year period? What would he say to a third level institution that is not fully collecting its student fees? What would he say to a third level institution that pays thousands to have a painting of its president? These are issues that are real, they are live and exist. I was not going to go into this matter this morning but Mr. Watt raised the issue. Someone is not listening to him and as a result the governance and procurement issues are being ignored. The message that he is delivering is not being listened to by the organisation that I quoted and by others. The small firms and their procurement interests are not being looked after because they simply cannot get in as it is a closed shop. I thought that we were trying to break the status quo and give firms an opportunity to do business. A lot of this has been a waste of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I would like to respond, initially.

Mr. Robert Watt

I shall just take a second. We have had a good and constructive conversation this morning. We have not seen the SFA report. I ask the Chairman to let us read it and then we can get back to him about it.

We will give the Department a copy and then it can give us a response.

Mr. Robert Watt

That would be fine. We can look through it. I am very happy to talk about any issue. I mean if a report is produced we are happy to have a look at it. We are not in a position to go through ten cases or cases that we have just heard described. I am not going to get into a position of going back to look through each of those cases and respond to what the Chairman said. We are very happy to look at them. We are very happy to understand the circumstances of the cases and what lies behind them. We are very happy to talk to the committee about that.

The point that I was making about third level - and I think that the Comptroller and Auditor General agreed with my point - was that there has been an improvement in productivity. Basically what we were saying - which I think is a fact - is we have reduced the cost to the Irish taxpayer. The subvention that goes to the third level sector is way down and the number of students that they are producing and the number of enrolments have gone way up. On a basic matric of cost per student, the system has improved productivity by upwards of 20%. One needs to adjust what that means for the quality of graduates and there might be issues about how that impacts. That was the general point I was making.

The Chairman commented on auditors' fees and legal fees of €21 million and talked about our governance. I do not know the institution or what report or chapter of what report to which he refers. If he provides me with the information, I will be very happy to look at it and, if it is relevant to the work of our Department, to give him a view but I do not know what institution he is talking about. Third level colleges are under enormous pressure and I am surprised by the examples of significant non-collection of fees but I am not in a position to comment on the details. I do not know exactly what-----

(Interruptions).

Mr. Robert Watt

I have not mentioned issues around governance at all this morning but I am happy to have a discussion about it.

Is it not all about governance? If proper governance and proper procurement practice were in place, some of the serious questions which have come up at the Committee of Public Accounts in the recent past may not have come up at all. I do not expect Mr. Watt to comment on the specifics I have raised but I am asking him to comment on the message he is delivering and how it is being heard. Are the relevant Departments and agencies hearing his message and subscribing to it? If they are, why is it that an old culture still exists?

Mr. Robert Watt

With all due respect to the Chairman, I am not entirely clear what question he is asking me. Is he saying there are cases where we need to improve governance and have better systems of accountability? Absolutely. I am aware of some cases which have come up at the committee. We have drafted a paper on accountability, which was published. We are now looking to see what recommendations we take forward from that.

I do not know how I can add to the debate when the Chairman makes general comments about governance or culture. What governance failing does he specifically have in mind? What does he think we can do about them? He mentioned that auditors were in place for 12 years. I am sure that somewhere within the governance procedures, there is a statement to the effect that there should be some rotation of auditors. That is for Departments to comply with. That is the case.

Is Mr. Watt satisfied that the governance required across the board, through Departments and agencies and into third level institutions, is being adhered to? Is he satisfied that the message he is sending, in terms of governance, accountability and saving money, is actually being listened to by all and sundry within the service? That is a pretty straightforward question. I do not accept he does not understand it.

Mr. Robert Watt

It is a very sweeping question. When it comes to improvements in value for money and ensuring that people understand the importance of spending public money in accordance with proper practices, I am happy we have a robust system in place and that Departments, Accounting Officers and agencies, in the main, understand their obligations. I am happy generally that they are complying with their obligations.

Of course, cases come up where the system makes a mistake, or there is a failure, and we have to identify it and figure out what it means and what learnings we can draw from that. In the main, I am happy with the way public money is appropriated, accounted for and spent.

I read through the Comptroller and Auditor General's 2012 report and I did not see any examples that he noted of misappropriation of funds. I saw one example of fraud in Uganda but the money has since been recouped. I did not see any examples of moneys which were spent outside the ambit of the Vote. I did not see egregious breaches of the public financial procedures, although I saw some breaches. When I look at that report and at other reports we produce, I am very happy to take on board their recommendations and to work with the Comptroller and Auditor General and Secretaries General in terms of how we can improve the situation.

I deal on the basis of what information and reports we have. In terms of public financial procedures and the overall approach to accounting for money, appropriation of money and value for money, we know we need to do better and I have outlined today some of the steps we are taking to improve the system but, generally, we are happy we are moving in the right direction.

I want to take up an issue Mr. Watt brought up in his contribution, namely, public service occupational pension schemes. I have a couple of questions and I just want to check that my figures are correct. Mr. Watt said there are 291,000 people employed in the public service currently and there are approximately 140,000 people in receipt of pensions currently. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

That is 431,000 people. One third are being paid pensions while approximately 66% are being paid wages. Where does Mr. Watt see that ratio going over the next 20 years? He said that accrued liability has fallen by €18 billion from €116 billion in 2009 to €98 billion today. We are obviously talking about the next 70 years. How will that be funded? I mention the dependency ratio between the number of people in receipt of pensions and the number working in the public sector.

Mr. Robert Watt

The €98 billion is the present value cost of future liabilities. It is the future liabilities of those who are serving, based on their service up to the end of 2012, and then it is the cost of those who are already pensioners, looking at the cost based on assumptions about longevity, mortality and so on. Some €98 billion is a cost over 70 years and, as the Deputy mentioned, it has come down. The outgoings on an annual basis are around €3 billion for the Exchequer. When one takes out lump sums, it is a little below that but when one adds in local authorities, it is a bit higher than €3 billion. Some €3 billion is around 2% of GDP. We expect that figure to increase as more people retire. As the Deputy knows, we had a massive explosion in the system during the 1970s and 1980s.

We will stay in the time path.

Mr. Robert Watt

We will see a 2% or 3% increase in the number of pensioners each year for the foreseeable future. The dependency ratio the Deputy mentioned between pensioners and public servants will change and we will have an increase.

What will that peak at?

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not know what it will peak at but certainly we will have increases every year in the number of people retiring. If we have 140,000, we will have 2,000 to 2,500 people retiring. Of course, pensioners will die or whatever, so there is a net increase. In effect, we will see costs go up due to the increase in the number of pensioners, The impact overall in terms of cash flow will depend on how we index link future pensioners, whether to CPI-----

How will that be funded?

Mr. Robert Watt

It is funded out of general taxation every year.

Is the National Pensions Reserve Fund a factor in that?

Mr. Robert Watt

No. When the National Pensions Reserve Fund was set up, the intention was that in the future, one third of the proceeds would meet some of the future costs of public sector pensions and two thirds of the cost of the social welfare bill. The intention when it was set up was to meet the future costs of ageing and if I remember correctly, one third of it was for public sector pensions and two thirds for social welfare. The social welfare pensions bill is around €5 billion and, as the Deputy knows, that is going up each year as the number of people over 65 years of age increases.

What does Mr. Watt anticipate the peak figure will be per annum for public service occupational pensions? It is €3 billion at the moment.

Mr. Robert Watt

We do not envisage that it will go too much beyond 2.5% to 3% of GDP into the future but it all depends on mortality as further extensions in longevity will increase the cost but it really depends on the assumption of prices and the rates.

What assumption has Mr. Watt made on wage increases, increments and so forth?

Mr. Robert Watt

We are assuming an increase of 3.6% per annum from 2016. There is a pay freeze until 2016 and a 3.6% increase is assumed from that point on. That gives the €98 billion estimate. If it is linked to the CPI then the figure will be lower than that. It is under €90 billion. In fact, it is €82 billion. That figure is based on the aforementioned assumption. We use a discount rate of 3% when we are ---

If it was linked to the CPI what would it be?

Mr. Robert Watt

It would be €82 billion.

There would be a further €16 billion in savings. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

What does Mr. Watt anticipate with regard to bonuses and so forth within the public sector? Does he have a view on that?

Mr. Robert Watt

On bonuses?

In general, yes. There is a pay freeze in place until 2016. Thereafter, what is Mr. Watt's view, as someone who is ---

Mr. Robert Watt

We have an agreement - the Haddington Road agreement - which stands up until 2016. We will then have to negotiate a new pay round covering 2016 to 2017 or 2018. We hope to be sitting down again at some stage in the second half of 2015 and negotiating with the union representatives. My own view on pay, accepting that policy is an issue for the Minister, is that it would be good to see much more flexible pay arrangements and a move to different forms of remuneration. However, there are lots of complications in the context of the structure of grades, increments, incentive structures and so forth. There is not much support for incentive structures at the moment, politically or otherwise. However, more mature and sophisticated pay structures would certainly help us in the context of driving performance and improving the system. However, as the Deputy knows, the debate is complex.

The issue of the overarching role of the Department vis-à-vis all other Departments and the State agencies has come up a number of times. I have raised the matter of State bodies and Departments holding cash balances previously. Has the Department examined this issue? There is a perception that money is being hoarded away in various bodies. Has the Department quantified the amount of money involved? Is there room for better cash management?

Mr. Robert Watt

The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned this before and there is a reference to the NRA in the most recent report. We have communicated with Departments about the need to minimise the amount of money that is in accounts. When it comes to issues from the Exchequer to the Departments, money is only issued when it is needed and it is spent fairly quickly. However, there is a problem when one goes outside Departments, into agencies and further afield, in terms of cash balances. We have made it very clear to Departments that this is inefficient, given the opportunity cost of raising funds. I know that cost is down to 3% now but the last time we debated this issue, it was at 5% or 6%. That is a cost and it can be significant. We have made it very clear that it should not happen now.

We did an analysis of the possibility of moving to a shared services banking system whereby, rather than issuing money from the Central Fund into accounts, we would have a single account and a much more consolidated banking approach. We looked at that for Government Departments and the in-scope bodies that are close to the centre. We found that there would not be enormous efficiency or gains because there was not that much money sitting around. Funds were only in accounts for a day or two. The Department of Finance is now looking at the potential of consolidated banking outside the core Departments involving, for example, local authorities, State agencies, universities, the HSE and others. There is the possibility of some solution there which will save money. The Department is working on that at the moment and doing an analysis of the potential. In the meantime, we have made it very clear that there should not be cash balances lying around. If any Department sees evidence of this, it should reduce the grant-in-aid. It should tell the relevant bodies that it will reduce their grant-in-aid and that they should not look for more money until they have spent the money they already have.

Has the Department examined the historical tendency for Departments and agencies to do an enormous proportion of their spending during the month of December to keep their budgets up? What is the situation in that regard now?

Mr. Robert Watt

We have moved to capital carry over on the capital side. In the past, there was an incentive to spend the money or it would be lost. So, on the capital side, we have moved to a carry-over system whereby we allow Departments to hold off on spending and that adds to their volume of money for the next year. That has created the right incentives. Under recent legislation to which I referred earlier, we now have provision for that to happen on the current spending side as well. That is something that we want to look at. We will look at envelopes over three years. If there is unspent money in year one, Departments should be allowed, without reference to the Dáil, to carry that over into the following year, thus creating the right incentives. However, given that we are still in this very difficult fiscal situation, we need to manage money very carefully every year and meet our budgetary targets so we have not activated that system. We would like to move to a situation where there is much more carry over between years so that we do not have the spending peaks to which the Deputy has referred. Our concern is that we do pre-payments and the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned such a pre-payment in one of his reports on the UN money, which is not allowed. The current system leads to that type of practice, which we do not like. It can also lead to the spending of money in a way which is not appropriate because of the need to spend. We are trying to manage the peaks at year end but ultimately we need to get to the multi-annual approach to spending and funding. The system needs to become much more mature before we address the issue.

What is Mr. Watt's view of the stimulus package and the sale of State assets?

Mr. Robert Watt

Most of the disposals have happened. The concession on the national lottery has been signed and we have received the first tranche of the money - over €200 million has come in

When did it come in?

Mr. Robert Watt

In the last few weeks.

Is that €220 million?

Mr. Robert Watt

Overall, €405 million is the up front payment which comes in two moieties. That has come in.

When is the second moiety due?

Mr. Robert Watt

That is due at the end of 2014 or else 01 January 2015, when the contract starts.

The €220 million has come in already ---

Mr. Robert Watt

There is also the disposal of the ESB power stations and Bord Gáis Éireann. There are various payments related to those sales due, which are staggered over a period.

Can Mr. Watt tell me how this will feed into the stimulus package in terms of the timeframe and so forth?

Mr. Robert Watt

There are different elements to this. In terms of the national lottery proceeds, the Minister announced a series of projects on budget day and now that the proceeds have come in, the relevant Departments can start the process of initiating those projects. That accounts for €200 million. The Minister has scope in terms of the moneys to come from ESB and Bord Gáis. The money comes in cash over a number of years but for general Government receipts purposes, it comes in over three years because in the account of the general Government receipts, the amounts cannot exceed the normal profits of the companies. All of the money cannot be spent on stimulus in year 1, even if that were desirable, because general Government spending would not match the general Government receipts. The money will come in over three years and the Minister will be announcing various initiatives over the next while ---

Does Mr. Watt have any idea of the amount that will be available over the three-year period?

Mr. Robert Watt

The Minister has indicated that he hopes to use some of the proceeds this year to meet some of the costs of the flooding, that is, the restoration works that are required. The Minister is going to make an announcement soon about other initiatives which will ---

Is there a value on that?

Mr. Robert Watt

We are working on exactly what that will mean. There are opportunities for 2015 and 2016 but it all depends on the timing of the proceeds and the overall budgetary position.

Finally, three PPPs have effectively been postponed - Metro North, DART underground and Metro West - which were valued at €228 million. How much money has been spent on those projects to date and what is Mr. Watt's view on their future? How much of the money that has been spent has gone into a black hole?

Mr. Robert Watt

The future of the projects is, obviously, a decision for the Government. It is up to the Government to decide whether it is affordable or desirable to proceed with them. The current position is that they are not within the capital envelope. We are not incurring any more spending on those projects and there is no more work relating to them going on. The Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has provided the committee with information on the spending to date, which I believe is between €150 million and €200 million. That money went on planning, various works around the Mater Hospital and the purchase of properties. I presume we can sell the properties that we purchased if that is what we want to do. Obviously, though, some money cannot be recouped because it involves ---

Does Mr. Watt have any idea how much will not be recouped?

Mr. Robert Watt

I think the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport said €150 million will not be recouped but I will come back to the Deputy on that. I cannot recall the exact amount but there is an investment in the projects which will not be recouped in the event that we do not proceed with them.

What is Mr. Watt's general view of the model for funding public service pensions? How sustainable is the provision? I understand officials are considering the various assumptions and the dependency ratio between the numbers working in the public sector and those in receipt of public sector pensions, which is tipping more towards pensioners.

Mr. Robert Watt

The sustainability of the system is a function of the demographics over time and the ratio of pensioners to the number of people in employment, which is a wider issue of the labour market and the economy. It is not confined to public sector but to social welfare pensions as well. It also relates to decisions the Government will take on -----

The dependency ratio is reducing.

Mr. Robert Watt

The dependency ratio is going in one direction, unless we can increase dramatically the numbers in employment, and even with that we will see a worsening of the dependency ratio. That is driven by an increase in the number of people over 65 years of age. It will pose challenges for the public finances in terms of pensions, health care and social care costs and long-term care costs. That is a major issue.

Has the Secretary General looked at sustainability models?

Mr. Robert Watt

The measures we have taken since 2009, as the Deputy can see from the figures I have provided this morning, have a major impact on the sustainability of public sector pensions. It is very sensitive to assumption on future policy. It is within our capacity to control some of the implications of these demographics depending on what decisions are taken.

Is Mr. Watt happy to proceed?

Mr. Robert Watt

We are happy to continue until the Chairman wishes to finish the meeting.

I have a number of issues that I wish to clear up and I will address my questions to Mr. Paul Quinn. We questioned the OPW commissioners on procurement related issues when they came before the committee some time ago. They suggested that some of the staff would go across to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, having finished the procurement work in the OPW, and would continue to work on procurement under the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

In respect of ongoing procurement for example on photocopiers, paper and similar equipment, did anyone examine how the procurement of new services impacted on the services that were already there? If a supplier left under the old scheme and a supplier came in under the new scheme, where did the equipment go or how was a determination on the value of the equipment arrived at? I had asked the commissioners from the OPW to give a report on the procurement up to the point of transfer before the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform assumed responsibility for it. I would appreciate if Mr. Quinn would give us an overview or furnish the committee secretariat with a note on it.

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes, Chairman.

I will now deal in general terms with other issues. Officials from the Department of Finance attend the Committee of Public Accounts every week, and I presume they report to the Department on the issues that were raised. I have raised with the HSE the question of purchasing a proper financial management system. The HSE's response is that it has made the submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform which was working on the proposal. Has the HSE's submission been with the Department for some time and when will a decision be made as the HSE contends that its current system is not fit for purpose?

Mr. Robert Watt

There are 11 systems and I do not think the HSE is happy with any of them. We all support the objective of the HSE moving to an integrated financial management system. We have been working with it on that. There are aspects of how the proposed system dovetails with the financial procedures and the reporting requirements we have. Some of the discussions earlier were on effective budgeting, whether it would meet our objectives and there is an issue around technology and the technology solution that underpins it. I do not think it is with us for sanction. Ultimately we are in favour of a new financial management system. We are working with the HSE to ensure that we have the best possible solution.

We were told at a previous hearing with the HSE that the proposal is with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for sanction.

Mr. Robert Watt

There has been an ongoing debate to ensure we have the right system and the right approach.

The HSE has made a proposal about what it believes is the right system and the right approach. I have raised this issue a number of times because we have been told there has been a process in place in which they are pursuing the provision of a new financial system of management and that it is with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not think it is fair to characterise the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as delaying or not sanctioning the proposal.

I am not characterising it like that, I am trying to establish exactly at what stage the proposal is at because the HSE has told us one story -----

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not know at what stage it is at. We are very supportive of the plans to move to an integrated financial system, which is absolutely essential for the HSE. The current systems do not work for the HSE. We are fully supportive of it. There has been a debate on whether it would become part of the new financial management shared services that we have been putting in place for the Civil Service, but it has been decided that it would not as the HSE is so large on its own that it would do its own thing. We want to ensure it is integrated. Let us come back to the committee on the exact position.

The HSE has not been doing its own thing very well. When the HSE appears before the Committee of Public Accounts and we ask for different sets of figures, it is very difficult to drill down into the figures because they are coming from all over the place.

Mr. Robert Watt

Absolutely, because the HSE has so many different units and entities and has to deal with the systems of the different health boards. We fully support the HSE objective and whatever investment is required to move to an integrated financial management system.

Is the HSE proposal with the procurement section, Mr. Quinn?

Mr. Paul Quinn

No, it is not.

Will Mr. Quinn check and let us know and give us a timeframe, as we are anxious to see that a system is put in place?

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes.

In terms of the decisions on money that has been spent and subsequent difficulties that arose, refer for example, to Carrisbrook House, Ballsbridge, an office leased by the Government of which a substantial part is vacant and the vacant space is costing €1.2 million. It has been like that for a number of years. When an issue like that arises at the Committee of Public Accounts at which officials from the Department of Finance attend, does the Secretary General engage with the OPW regarding the lease and does a discussion take place as to how best to bring a lease with no return to the State to a conclusion?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Chairman that is an issue for Forfás.

Mr. Robert Watt

The cost of leases of premises that the State is leasing has reduced dramatically. We now get out of all leases that are due. That has been the policy for some time and the OPW has saved between €30 million and €40 million -----

I understand that. I have to deal with the issue that is before me, namely, the lease on Carrisbrook House. Most of that building is vacant and is costing the State a considerable amount of money. Does Mr. Watt engage with the Department to find out how best to deal with this issue?

Mr. Robert Watt

If an issue comes up on improving how money is spent or saving money for the State, then the relevant Vote officer will raise it with the OPW or the enterprise Vote in this case. I do not know the ins and outs of this-----

I have raised it. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is the Department with responsibility for cutting numbers and creating greater efficiencies. Is there an unit in the Department that will deal with thorny issues, such as this vacant building costing the State a great deal of money? Is Mr. Watt interested in asking the Accounting Officer what he or she is doing about it.

Mr. Robert Watt

We have an interest in anything that involves public money. We have 150 people who work in the different Vote sections in the Department. There is a Vote section that looks after the OPW and the enterprise Vote. The officers responsible for that Vote would be raising questions on the lease and whether the vacant space could be used for other purposes and would have conversations with other sections looking for space.

How did that conversation go in relation to Carrisbrook House?

Mr. Robert Watt

I have no knowledge of the details of this. I have never -----

Will Mr. Watt get them and let us know?

Mr. Robert Watt

I have never heard the details of it.

We had a hearing on the issue of Carrisbrook House and the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported on it.

Mr. Robert Watt

The Accounting Officer-----

Is it not the case that Mr. Watt is responsible for talking to these Accounting Officers about the problems within the system?

Mr. Robert Watt

The Accounting Officer who is responsible for spending on the leases is the Accounting Officer for the issue the Chairman has raised.

Does Mr. Watt not have a responsibility in that regard? Would he not raise the matter with the Accounting Officer by saying "I heard you at the Public Accounts Committee - you are costing the State a lot of money" and asking him what he is doing about it?

Mr. Robert Watt

The officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who would have been privy to the conversation would have raised that with their colleagues in the relevant-----

Okay. Can I have a note on the matter?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes, we can supply a note.

The State spent almost €10 million on the Tipperary Hostel project. Various Government bodies gave money to the hostel, which is a partially completed building in Tipperary. I would like to know, on foot of what has happened in this case, how we can protect the money that has already been spent on the project. It has not been completed. It has cost the amount of money I have mentioned. It is lying idle. Work has been completed on the church area but not on the hostel area. The matter has been raised at the Committee of Public Accounts. We have written to the appropriate Department and the other Accounting Officers. Someone needs to make a decision on what is going to be done with the hostel. It needs to be completed so that some advantage accrues from the €10 million in taxpayers' money that has been spent on it. I wonder whether the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has become involved, on the basis of the amount of money and the number of agencies involved, by saying to the various Accounting Officers that the problem in Tipperary needs to be sorted.

Mr. Robert Watt

Is it a public building? Is it owned by the State?

We put €10 million into the building. It has been the subject of a hearing, or some comments, here. I am suggesting that someone in a government or administration role in the Department, which is responsible for overseeing the other Departments, might ask the various Departments that have funded this project what they intend to do about it.

Mr. Robert Watt

We can certainly chase that up and find out what the position is.

Okay. My next question relates to the State pathology laboratory. The Accounting Officer in that case told us they were going to build a State pathology laboratory, but they could not commit the money over the years - although they had spent €3.3 million on it - and they knocked it. I would like to know what process is followed in the Department to allow such a decision to be made. Would the Accounting Officer have to go back to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for sanction? Would the Accounting Officer simply make a judgment call that the best thing to do is to knock it because no more money is available? Is it within the Department's remit to make that decision and thereby write off €3.3 million of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Robert Watt

There is delegated sanction in these areas. It is likely that an issue like this would come back to the Department. I do not know the ins and outs of it. Obviously, I have read the Comptroller and Auditor General's chapter on the matter. I understand that the developer went bust halfway through.

Mr. Robert Watt

The contractor went bust. Then there were financial issues about our capacity to fund it. Expenditure was incurred. Obviously, many things of that nature happened during the crash.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It also became physically dangerous, so it had to be demolished on instructions which may have been a factor in it.

Mr. Robert Watt

The Accounting Officer, taking account of the different issues, would have had to make a decision on that. They would have had delegated sanction to do so. They would have had to comply with the procedures. They would have had to make a very strong case. They would have needed to be happy that the taxpayers' money which had been invested in the half-completed building-----

Are they obliged to consult the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

Mr. Robert Watt

They would have delegated sanction for that. They have to ensure they comply with general financial procedures. In that particular instance, I do not know whether they-----

Would Mr. Watt be annoyed with them?

Mr. Robert Watt

I do not know the circumstances of the situation. I do not know the ins and outs of it. I presume there was some reason they decided to demolish it. If the building was dangerous, a decision might have been taken on the basis that they would never be in a position to develop it in the desired manner in the future. I understand that the recommendations arising from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report have been accepted by the Accounting Officer.

I want to ask Mr. Watt about Poolbeg. An examination of the spend on Poolbeg is not covered by this committee. It is a huge public concern that this money has been spent and it seems that nothing will happen. There is no public scrutiny of that money. We decided this morning that we would ask for permission to investigate the €108 million. I wonder whether the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has had any discussions with the various authorities - the Department, the council or whoever else is at play - about the site. Has it asked for an explanation of why €90 million or €96 million has been spent on this matter to date?

Mr. Robert Watt

I think over €90 million has been spent. I understand this is an issue for Dublin City Council. They have procedures there. The city manager accounts for public money to councillors in the first instance. I refer to the elected representatives on the audit committees of the council and on the local government audit committee. There are procedures in place to account for that spending. It has been a protracted project going back over the decades. A great deal of sensitive planning and environmental issues are involved. I do not know what the current status of this project, on which Dublin City Council has spent an amount of money, is. It seems, based on current policy, that we are not going to see the incinerator. Obviously, that means the rate payers of the city will take a significant hit. In the first instance, it is up to the city manager in Dublin to account to the councillors.

It is taxpayers' money.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes, it is.

It was collected by Revenue on behalf of the State. The State cannot sit on its hands in this case. Some mechanism has to be found to carry out an investigation into how that €96 million was spent. If I were in Mr. Watt's shoes, I would be saying to the Accounting Officer that they need to report to some authority, such as this committee. The job of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would be easier if this €96 million were available for something else.

Mr. Robert Watt

I think the €96 million was spent over a long time. I do not know what the status of the project is. I do not know whether it is proceeding. There are mechanisms within the various Local Government Acts to review things that take place. It is possible for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government or for Dublin City Council to initiate a review. There are existing mechanisms that can be instigated to look at spending and at what actually happened. I am not sure whether a decision has been taken not to proceed with the project. Perhaps it is still a possibility.

I am not worried about that aspect of the matter. I am more concerned with trying to understand the role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the officials in the Department who come here every week and hear all of these stories. I am just repeating what has gone on over the past few weeks. I am trying to find out from Mr. Watt, in a reasonable way, what happens after that. Is it just a hearing? Does the process end when we make a report? Are recommendations made for the future? Mr. Watt is the Secretary General of the Department. I do not mean this personally. I would like to know whether the Department is in a position to ask the various Accounting Officers to provide a comprehensive response and an indication of what they are going to do. Is it not the case that the Department is allocating the money? Is it concerned that money it has provided has been spent wrongly?

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

Would the Department not require the Accounting Officers to provide a comprehensive response to these matters? Would it not insist on it and then inform the Committee of Public Accounts of what needs to be done?

Mr. Robert Watt

Of course we do that.

We are trying to work with Mr. Watt.

Mr. Robert Watt

Absolutely. We want to work with the committee. The procedure that is followed is that when a report is issued, the Accounting Officers say whether they agree with the recommendations in the report and whether they will implement them.

We take on board issues that arise regarding amendments to our procedures and guidance on updating public financial procedures. As mentioned earlier, we are updating a variety of circulars on foot of recommendations from the Comptroller and Auditor General following discussion at this committee. This is one way we are addressing this.

We also have Vote officers involved all the time, not just on issues that arise here but on issues that appear regularly. Every week and month issues around Votes arise and Vote officers engage, ask for explanations, question and query initiatives on behalf of taxpayers to ensure the money is spent. In regard to the number of cases mentioned during this meeting, we will be happy to follow up on these and to ask the particular Secretary General about them. In the normal course of events, this is what we would do. To answer the question, we follow up routinely on the issues that arise. Once information comes to light about how money is spent, we go to the various Secretaries General and ask about the issue. They are the Accounting Officers and are responsible and know their obligations under the various procedures that exist.

The reason I ask the question is because in some of these cases there are a number of different funding bodies or agencies. We cannot sit them all down together and get the appropriate response, because in some cases they are looking for more money. What I am asking Mr. Watt to do is just that.

Mr. Robert Watt

Yes.

I have one more question relating to section 38 and section 39 organisations. Was there no mechanism within the HSE to monitor all of this as it progressed over the years? We have now arrived at a situation where in regard to section 38 organisations, a considerable number of business cases have been made to the HSE to allow the organisations in question retain the arrangement they have. Will someone from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform sit with the Department of Health and the HSE to oversee these business proposals so that we can get a handle on what is going on?

Mr. Watt asked me earlier about governance issues. In our hearing with the CRC, we have seen huge governance issues, so we do not need to stray too far to find an example. In the context of bringing the matter of section 38 organisations to a close - we have yet to complete discussion on the section 39 organisations - I would hope that we would at least have an overview, not only from the Department of Health and the HSE, but from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, because they have to produce their business plans. Will the Department be sitting in on that?

Ms Oonagh Buckley

The process that has been laid out in the Hay policy for the health sector developed by the Department of Health in consultation with our Department last year is that the business cases will be made at the HSE and it will filter them through and examine them for their appropriateness according to pay policy. Following that, it will submit them to the Department of Health, which will also review them. If, after examination by the HSE and the Department of Health, it is felt it is appropriate to seek the sanction of the Department of Finance, they would come to my team for sanction and we will examine the cases being made. Therefore, there is a triple layer of review. To put it this way, it would be inappropriate for me or somebody from my Department to sit on the HSE level, because we will have to examine the cases that make it through the double filter before they get to us and come to a conclusion as to whether we agree with the continuation of the payment.

That explanation is fine. How long will that process take?

Ms Oonagh Buckley

I understand, and this was stated by the Minister for Health in the past week or so, that just over 200 business cases have been made by section 38 bodies. These cases are being reviewed by the HSE, but with that number of cases it will take a little longer than normal. I believe that process is due to be completed within the next two weeks and it is only after that a number of business cases, a small number I hope, will make it through to us for review and ultimate sanction, if that is the case.

I apologise for having to leave the meeting for a while. For the record and for posterity, I think the record should reflect that our officials are eating Twirls or some other sugar rush substance.

Mr. Robert Watt

Twirl bites. They are small, low calorie bites.

They are not being shared either.

Mr. Robert Watt

We did not want to upset the core of the committee by passing them around.

Let that also be noted.

I will not delay the meeting. All of my questions revolve around the area of procurement and perhaps I should address them to Mr. Quinn, but I will let the Secretary General decide who should respond.

On the Order of Business today, I raised the issue of the new directive on public procurement which was agreed approximately three months ago. I am aware the State has yet to bring forward the enabling legislation, but is there a sense of urgency in regard to bringing this forward? The Department is probably aware that under the current regime, many small and medium-sized enterprises are, essentially, locked out of the procurement process. The new directive, with its focus on social benefit and on loosening up the regime and making it more comprehensive is welcome. This committee has received a submission from the Irish School Arts Supply Federation, some of whose members are here in the public gallery. They are very welcome.

Having made the general point regarding the directive and the procurement regime, I want to speak now about the small and medium-sized enterprise sector in particular. The group represented here today is representative of 70 micro businesses. The group here is in the business of supplying stationery and supplies to schools. Everybody understands the imperative of efficiency and cost savings and we will take this as a given. However, under the new regime, these enterprises find themselves in a difficult situation, one that many believe could endanger their existence. Will Mr. Watt explain to us the use of aggregate contracts for products and services, particularly in regard to this area?

Mr. Robert Watt

I will ask Mr. Paul Quinn to deal with that question. Our earlier replies in response to Deputy Connaughton's questions may dovetail with this, but I did not realise there was a group in the gallery. I told Deputy Connaughton we were very happy to meet any group with a concern and Mr. Quinn's team is available to meet them, as we have done previously with other groups.

That is fine. If I am rehashing the questions that have already been asked, please tell me.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I will try to be brief. I welcome and note the Deputy's comment on the directives. We have a team which has been working on them, even prior to its publication a couple of weeks ago. As the Deputy may be aware, the directives were largely negotiated under the Irish Presidency. We are already working on measures, in advance of the lengthy transposition process. I mentioned earlier that we are working with bodies such as the SFA, ISME, etc., to get their input into a redraft of Circular 10/10, concerning facilitating SME participation in public procurement, which we should be in a position to accelerate in the next month or two. This will be helpful for small businesses.

I am somewhat precluded from discussing the detail of a contract that is currently under way relating to stationery. The Deputy may be aware that the last iteration of that contract was offered to the market as one contract. In the current tender process, we have broken that into four lots, as we are trying to break down bigger elements of business. The smallest of those lots runs to the order of hundreds of thousands of euro rather than millions of euro. We are trying to enable smaller businesses to compete for those contracts.

However, there will be a requirement at the micro level for businesses to create consortia and work together to win business from the State. There is a tension between aggregation value for money at one end, and in terms of inclusion and getting down to micro businesses at the other end. We are doing a lot of work with bodies such as Enterprise Ireland, InterTradeIreland, and the Competition Authority to enable businesses to put together consortia. In fact, in our tender documents we encourage consortia.

I appreciate the limitations on what Mr. Quinn can say on the specifics of a particular tender, but I would like to speak on that issue of consortia coming together. There is a cross-party group of Deputies which has been active on this issue, of which Mr. Quinn is probably aware, and it has raised the following issue which I would like to put to him. Although a group is formed for the purposes of the application, there must be a principal tenderer. The difficulty that presents for micro businesses is quite considerable, because that principle carries not just the administrative burden but the primary responsibility on behalf of the group. For practical purposes, we are told that just does not work. I am not gainsaying the work of InterTradeIreland and other organisations that might be of a different scale, but in many cases when dealing with small organisations or micro businesses, that is not a practical proposition. Does Mr. Quinn understand that?

Mr. Paul Quinn

I understand the difficulty it may place in front of small businesses to get together in that way, but we have evidence of success in that regard as well. Some of the contracts that have been offered have been won by consortia by constructing these arrangements. There may be an overhead-----

Including what we would consider as micro businesses rather than small-----

Mr. Paul Quinn

I am not sure what the Deputy defines as micro businesses.

What does Mr. Quinn define as-----

Mr. Paul Quinn

SMEs generally run anything up to 300 in size. I think that is a standard definition.

There is a big difference between an organisation of 300 in size and an organisation of ten employees.

Mr. Paul Quinn

Yes. InterTradeIreland has been funding some training programmes that are delivered directly for and with SMEs to enable them to get a bit of experience and knowledge in this area. There are challenges and there is no doubt about that, but by breaking into this, those enterprises that get together for consortia can win business elsewhere. It has been proved that by putting together consortia, not only to win business here, but also north of the Border, across into the United Kingdom and into Europe. When they do that and break into public procurement, it is a bit like an exam question. Once the winning formula is figured out, it is quite repeatable.

What I am trying to establish is whether Mr. Quinn is aware of the difference for micro businesses. I am not for a second setting aside the value of SMEs coming together to bid. That is entirely sensible and I wish to acknowledge the work done by InterTradeIreland, Enterprise Ireland and other agencies. That is not what I am getting at. Micro businesses wish to bid for business and they have been at this for a very long time with high rates of customer satisfaction, proper standards and so on. What I want to know is whether the system is aware of the essential difference between an SME of a larger scale and a very small business. I have a sense that they are all lumped in together.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I am sorry if the Deputy gets that impression, because it is not my intention to put that across. We are very aware that many businesses in Ireland are actually quite small and substantially less than the standard definition of 300. Having said that, we are trying to work with supply chains and with potential bidders in order that they can understand the mechanisms by which they can break into public procurement. Part of that is in respect of potential consortia, but also working with larger suppliers, where they can form part of a supply chain. In other words, they work with another group bigger than them and feed into that. We have examples of that in the managed print area, where a number of smaller players have worked with much bigger players to be part of a bid process and a part of the supply chain. For the example of Codex stationery the last time, somewhere between 120 and 130 SMEs fed into that. They were small businesses. We are not talking about businesses with 300 or 400 staff, but ten or 20.

That is the reaction to that. Am I right in saying the formation of a special purpose vehicle for tender is not allowable under the current system?

Mr. Paul Quinn

I would have to get back to the Deputy on that. I do not know the answer to that question.

I would appreciate if Mr. Quinn could get back to me on that. It has been a long meeting so I would like to raise two other things and make a suggestion if that is okay. There was a concern raised by some businesses, which know their onions, as they say, because this is the area in which they have been operating for a long time, in some cases for generations, about health and safety standards and proper standards for the stationery and equipment within the tender process. Can Mr. Quinn say something about that? I am saying this as a parent as much as anything else. A parent wants to know if pencils or crayons that children are using are up to scratch and fully comply with safety standards.

The second issue is related to concerns about predatory pricing by bigger players which, by virtue of this new regime, move into the market and engage in predatory pricing. There is a sense that there are insufficient checks and balances around all that, or a lack of consideration in the process.

Mr. Paul Quinn

The Deputy will understand that I cannot comment on the tender process currently in train, so I will generalise rather than discuss the specifics. As part of our procurement processes, we always encourage contracting authorities to look at the most economically advantageous tender, and not simply at the lowest price. There is typically a weighting between the quality of the goods and services and the price at which they are offered. Depending on whether we are buying IT services or vehicles, the weighting applied between those two may vary because of the nature of the goods and services. We always encourage and evaluate quality as part of any tender process. If specific health and safety issues have been raised relative to something that is in train, I would prefer if they were raised separately. That would be in order, because we are in the middle of a competitive process and I cannot really discuss the details of that here.

There are standard processes on predatory pricing, which I mentioned earlier in the meeting, which deal with abnormally low tenders. If a bidder comes through with pricing which from a procurement perspective may look unsustainable and may compromise delivery in the longer term, contracting authorities are obliged to evaluate the ability of the bidder to deliver the goods and services and sustain those services.

The last thing anyone wants is that a contract would not perform, so there are standard processes.

It might not be a case of predatory pricing but that a tenderer might be of such a scale that it can absorb losses in one cycle, thereby logically seeing off smaller entities that go out of business, to put it crudely. When the procurement office considers an abnormally low price, it might also consider the scale of the organisation tendering and see that it is a multinational, which can absorb this. I would be concerned if that were the only prism through which the office examined a bid. Someone who knows the industry might consider, for instance, what is charged for a whiteboard and say there is no way the bidder could come in that low. It seems insufficient to base the assessment of the pricing strategy on whether a big concern can deliver the service. It could be that it can but meanwhile it has caused damage elsewhere.

Mr. Paul Quinn

The abnormally low tender process occurs as part of a procurement process. Before we do that, we assess the market, consider how big the Government is in the context of the overall market, how concentrated it is, and see how strong the competition is and how international or national it is. That enables us to take a view of how we approach the market and whether to approach it in big or small lots. We do not want to create monopolies or distort markets. That is why we do a lot of work with the Competition Authority to ensure when we bring a dynamic to the marketplace, we do so in a way that maintains healthy competition in the marketplace for the long term. It is in our interest as a State that markets stay competitive and contestable.

I know if the people in the Public Gallery were in a position to speak, they would contest much of that.

This group of organisations, the Irish School Arts Supply Federation, ISASF, directly employs 1,600 people. It estimates it would cost the IDA approximately €21 million to find replacement jobs for that number of people. Outside of price and quality, which are legitimate measures, how are jobs measured in the broad scheme? All of us who have taken an interest in this issue were alarmed to hear that perhaps the procurement regime, the new office, was not terribly concerned about jobs or job retention. I hope I am wrong in having formed that impression and I hope Mr. Quinn can dispel it. The office does market research and looks for value for money and quality product, but it must also look to its starting point, who the players are and how many people they employ. How is that catered for?

Mr. Paul Quinn

In respect of market analysis, we need to take a step back to understand the scale of the challenge. The Government has tasked us with saving significant moneys over the next few years. It is not free. There is a cost. It will have implications. The scale is of the order of 2.5%. That is what we are attempting to achieve. It is not that the contraction in our spend through procurement activity will be double digit. We are talking about continuing and maintaining a spend of at least 97.5% every year which will continue to sustain a significant number of jobs within the economy. There is no doubt about that.

We are bound by the EU treaty regulations on procurement and cannot discriminate. We have to be transparent and equitable in our treatment of all suppliers. We bring our proposals to the marketplace to try to deliver the best value for money and to ensure that is sustainable. There will and can be winners and losers in the activity. It drives competition, which can make businesses healthier and more competitive. The experience of some of our sister organisations overseas has been that their work with SMEs strengthens them enough to win more business, not only nationally but overseas. Public procurement can have positive consequences.

Would it not be a terrible irony if as part of the strategy to save 2.5% of moneys, some or all of those 1,600 jobs in long-standing, micro enterprises were lost? Would it not be ironic if the cost to the Exchequer that would represent by way of social welfare subvention, loss of tax revenue and PRSI etc. was not part of the policy picture? Mr. Quinn's response did not reassure me that the office factors jobs into the equation. Maybe that is not Mr. Quinn’s kick. Maybe that is an issue for Government, but it seems odd, to say the least, for an Administration that talks about creating jobs.

Mr. Paul Quinn

We work very closely with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on everything we do. We have set up a high level group with it and between us we are driving several initiatives to try to ensure we dovetail with Action Plan for Jobs, and we have responsibility for several actions in that context. It is worth bearing in mind that we spend approximately €8 million a year on stationery. That is approximately 10% of the overall market. We are not by a long chalk the biggest factor in the market. We are very conscious of the implications of our actions and we take them into account in our market analysis. This year we made a substantial change in our approach to the market in that we did not offer the tender in one big lot, which we had done previously. We have listened and learned and looked at things through different lenses. We have broken the competition into four pieces this time.

These organisations directly employ 1,600 people. That is a lot of jobs. Does the Chairman think it would be in order for us to circulate the submission from the ISASF to Mr. Quinn and Mr. Watt on behalf of the committee and ask them to study it? I know they have agreed to a meeting. Much of what Mr. Quinn has said is contested but I am conscious of the hour. Can the Chairman confirm the committee will give the ISASF an opportunity to make a presentation at a later meeting?

Is the Deputy reading from a particular submission?

It is a submission from the Irish School Arts Supply Federation to the Committee of Public Accounts.

We have two submissions. I agree with the Deputy's proposal and it can happen.

Thank you, Chairman.

However, in light of what has been said today about procurement and this particular issue, and given the two submissions in question, perhaps Mr. Quinn or his section in the Department would examine both submissions and revert to the committee. We will hear from the group to which the Deputy refers and the response to the issues that are raised in the two reports. That might involve another session which should be held as soon as possible because of the implications.

Mr. Paul Quinn

I am fine with that, Chairman.

I thank Mr. Quinn. We have come to the conclusion of the meeting. I thank the witnesses for attending.

Is it agreed to dispose of Votes 11 and 12 and chapters 3 and 5 of the 2012 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and appropriation accounts? Agreed. We will hold over chapter 4 for further examination. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The committee adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10 April 2014.
Barr
Roinn