Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total expenditure of his Department during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2606/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the expenditure of his Department for 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3697/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the expenditure of his Department during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5702/05]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the total expenditure for his Department for 2004. [6515/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The total expenditure of my Department in 2004 was €29,172,288, compared with a total Estimate provision of €37.5 million.
The Taoiseach informed the House recently that the cost to his Department of the Moriarty tribunal in 2004 was €3.607 million. The tribunal was established in 1997 and, although it is now in its eighth year, there has not yet been an interim report. The Mahon tribunal, formerly known as the Flood tribunal, has produced four interim reports, thus keeping the public and the Administration up to date. However, we do not know the timescale for the Moriarty tribunal. Is the Taoiseach concerned about this? Has he determined when the tribunal will end? Are we to have a report indicating the progress that has been made? Given that the tribunal sits very infrequently, when does the Taoiseach believe Mr. Justice Moriarty will be able to bring his deliberations to a conclusion?
I answered questions on this matter last week. First, on the financial issue, expenditure of the tribunal in 2004 amounted to €3.6 million. I gave the full figures last week. In 2004 this subhead included a provision to meet the payment of legal costs arising from the award of costs to parties appearing before the tribunal, should its work be completed during the year. As the tribunal was still sitting at the end of the year these costs did not arise.
Before the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, left office, he spent a number of months working with the Attorney General to try to arrive at a final date for all the tribunals, particularly the Moriarty tribunal, so he could give additional resources while keeping the fees at a certain level. I am not sure if the Moriarty tribunal needed resources but some tribunals did to bring them to final dates. Those dates were agreed. If I recall correctly what I said last week, the Moriarty tribunal is due to finish in early 2006.
I have given dates on all the tribunals over the years and have been out by many years so I do not know when they will conclude. I am sure the new fee arrangement will come into effect if the tribunal is not finished by that date. That arrangement has been nailed down.
The Deputy's comment on interim and final reports is factual but I have no control over that.
The expenditure for the Department of the Taoiseach for this year includes an estimate of €200,000 for the task force on citizenship. Will the Taoiseach expand on that and advise us exactly how those moneys will be spent? I note also €311,000 was spent on the Newfoundland-Labrador business partnerships in 2004 and the estimate for this year is €321,000. Will the Taoiseach explain the purpose of that expenditure and what return we receive for that?
The task force on citizenship was one of the issues with which my Department dealt by co-ordinating the activity of various groups on the issues of citizenship. This fed into the social partnership model and into a wider model where detailed work was undertaken. I do not have a detailed briefing note on this but work has been ongoing in the Department with a broad spectrum of bodies and groups.
Ten years ago the then Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, established joint agreements with Newfoundland-Labrador in a number of areas. This was successful and was the one project which John Bruton asked me to follow up because he had put much personal work into it. Ireland has a long historic relationship with Newfoundland-Labrador but the relationship had not been developed. Mr. John Bruton formally set up this memorandum of understanding which has been updated twice since then.
It covers education, cultural issues, genealogy and family histories and several other streams as well as business. The latest event under the memorandum was a visit here late last year by the Prime Minister with a large trade delegation. Several of our Ministers have visited there in recent years. We have built co-operation on a historic base and it has been an excellent project.
Will the Taoiseach please furnish a response on the task force given that he does not have the detail today?
I will get that.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Did the €29 million spent by the Taoiseach's Department include expenditure on the lawyers in the Moriarty tribunal? If top barristers were paid the same rate as labourers on Gama's construction site what would the saving be to his Department?
That question does not arise out of these four questions.
The answer would be interesting all the same.
It would take me a while to do the mathematics.
Under headings A5, A6 and A7 in the Taoiseach's accounts there seems to be an explosion of spending on office premises, which has increased by 119%, while spending on machinery and other office equipment is up55%. Can the Taoiseach recall what consultancy services caused an increase of 77%? Did Mr. Phil Flynn do any consultancy work for the Taoiseach's Department?
I answered a written question on that recently. I do not think Mr. Flynn received any remuneration from my Department. He was chairman of the Government's decentralisation committee but that is not considered as consultancy work.
The expenditure on consultancy was €153,122 which was mainly on the employee opinion survey and professional services for a report on comparative international approaches to redress for customers of the Civil Service. Of that, €13,198 was spent on public relations.
Expenditure under A9, the EU Presidency, includes €158,280 on consultancy services. I do not have a breakdown of the figures for those contracts. The Presidency is one and the other is the employee opinion survey for the Civil Service redress system.
Will the Taoiseach comment on current and future spending levels for the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum? There has been criticism recently that this is increasing but there is merit in increasing this funding, as both organisations do valuable work in assessing future trends and the direction of policy for the Government and those who aspire to be in Government.
A total of €1.032 million was provided for the National Economic and Social Development Office under subhead M of the Department's Vote. This office comprises the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum to which the Deputy has referred. The primary role of these bodies is to facilitate and promote complementary programmes of research, analysis and discussion. They have a shared administration and submit reports to Government.
The National Economic and Social Council provides strategic economic reports looking forward in various areas of the agreed programme for Government. The National Social and Economic Forum looks at the social programme. Both bodies are representative of the social partners and of a broad spectrum of opinion, including independent and other members. From the point of the view of the State and value for money, having them together and with joint administration is practical. They do not take their direction from the Government but have a high level of independence in their analysis. The only report the Government requests is the analysis for each round of pay and economic agreements. Most of their other studies are based on the range of issues raised by their own members.
Strategic Management Initiative.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that the strategic management initiative is achieving the objectives set for it. [2538/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made within his Department in the implementation of the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6084/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
The strategic management initiative was launched more than ten years ago with the objective of improving the quality and efficiency of service to the Government and the public. While it has evolved over time, the main focus has been on the areas of strategic management, customer service, financial management, human resource management, regulatory reform and information systems management. In the case of the Civil Service, a detailed modernisation programme has been pursued under each of these headings, while broadly similar reforms have been applied across the wider public service. Implementation has been supported by specific commitments and verification processes in national pay agreements. The implementation group of secretaries general, chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, oversees the modernisation programme.
In 2002, an independent evaluation of the strategic management initiative in the Civil Service by PA Consulting concluded that the Civil Service is a more effective organisation than it was a decade ago and that much of this change can be attributed to the strategic management initiative. However, it also concluded that implementation of the modernisation programme was not complete, particularly in the areas of human resource and financial management. Since this evaluation, significant further progress has been achieved. It is not possible to cover all aspects in this reply, but I would like to mention in particular progress with new legislation for recruitment and discipline of civil servants, new recruitment and promotion arrangements under Sustaining Progress, roll-out of the management information framework, introduction of multi-annual capital budgets, publication of customer charters, increasing provision of public services over the Internet and publication of the White Paper on Better Regulation.
Under Sustaining Progress, performance verification groups have been established for the main areas of the public service. These have independent chairs and include customer and business representatives. They are required to satisfy themselves on progress in regard to modernisation and change prior to approving payments under the agreement, which include 75% of the benchmarking awards. The progress reports submitted to these groups are publicly available and demonstrate considerable achievements right across the public service.
The reports submitted to the performance verification group in respect of my Department demonstrate significant progress in a range of areas, including internal audit and expenditure reviews, development of the e-Cabinet system, publication of the customer charter and implementation of the management information framework and human resource management system. These are just a few examples of greater flexibility, productivity and customer focus within the Department which helped to ensure that the PVG approved the payment of increases due under Sustaining Progress on each occasion.
A considerable amount has been achieved in modernising the way the civil and public service operates. Equally, it is clear that there is scope for further improvement and the Government will continue to press ahead with reform programmes in the public service and other sectors.
That is a long and confusing answer. One of the outcomes of the strategic management initiative of which the Taoiseach will be aware is the enactment of the Public Service Management Act 1997. I do not wish to reopen the debate we had this morning, but does the Taoiseach agree that, under that element of the strategic management initiative, it is the responsibility of Ministers to ask questions where they consider public servants have not briefed them properly on a particular issue? When writing in the Irish Independent on 7 January 2001, Mr. Fergal Bowers said——
It is not appropriate to quote during Question Time.
I will not quote from the article, I have memorised it. Mr. Bowers said that thousands of medical card holders in public beds were charged——
That issue does not arise on these questions.
I did not yet get to the question. The Taoiseach said that his Department has become more productive and more customer focused. We are, for instance, paying €300,000 for the communications unit within his Department. Does the Taoiseach think that people would have seen that article on the front page of the Irish Independent of 7 January 2001, that they would have brought it to the notice of the Minister and, under the SMI, questions would have been appropriate?
In light of the analysis by the Taoiseach's Department that the Civil Service is now better than it was, will he give us two or three examples of where there is a significant improvement in customer focus or public benefit from his Department under the strategic management initiative so that people on the street can say the Department of the Taoiseach has improved in these areas and there is a better service for Mr. Citizen?
On the first issue, the Public Service Management Act is in place. Obviously it is up to Minister's direct staff and wider staff to keep abreast of issues that are discussed, and normally that happens in an effective manner.
On the improvements that have taken place in the Department since the introduction of the modernisation programme, I have answered this question on a number of occasions. In general, over the past decade since the SMI was introduced, there has been staff flexibility and improved capacity to respond to changed circumstances and external pressures right across the Civil Service. Staffing numbers in my Department have been reduced over the past three years, but still — during the EU Presidency when we had to take on additional staff — by and large, they were able to deal with the increased workload. Certainly there is more productivity and accountability given the introduction of expenditure and business plan reviews. The new financial management computer system which has been introduced in my Department and other Departments is very good. It itemises and identifies certain aspects and makes people responsible for budgets right down to a micro level, which was not the case up to now. It is a good cost base within Departments.
There is a more focused response to customer needs, with specific targets outlined in the Department's customer charter, and regular evaluation of progress. My Department published a customer charter, which sets out a range of commitments across all aspects of the service provided by the Department. Intensive consultation took place with external customers. It has not just been a case of the Department saying it is doing a great job. People who deal with the Department have been asked in detailed questionnaires for their views, what can be improved and what can be dealt with more speedily. More than 400 external customers were surveyed as part of this process. The Department was considered by customers to be a high performer both in the public and the private sector. Performance in regard to the commitments in the customer charter will be reported in the annual report. It is not just an aspect which is mentioned but not followed through.
My Department also established a performance indicators group. It runs pilot schemes across divisions in the Department and prepares a report for the management advisory committee on issues that arise in the various sections. Performance indicators for each division will be outlined in the strategy statement this year and for the period up to the end of 2007. This does not refer to all the issues relating to technology. There is much greater mobility of people within sections. This takes place on a regular basis so that people can gain broad experience.
The one negative aspect that still exists is that there is not enough mobility between Departments, particularly in terms of my Department. If one spends all one's life in my Department or the Department of Finance, one will have a particular point of view. It would be better for the people involved and for everyone else if there was greater inter-change between Departments. However, this will not be easy to achieve.
The Taoiseach does not intend spending all his life in his Department.
Exactly.
In terms of the success of the strategic management initiative, when the Taoiseach says that Departments are preforming better now than they were 20 years ago, is it not difficult to take that statement at face value on the day when the Committee of Public Accounts will publish a report showing that the Department of Education and Science concluded a deal with the religious orders that exposes the taxpayer to a bill of €850 million, with only €128 million being recouped from the religious? That may have been a political decision but after last week's High Court case, it looks like the Comptroller and Auditor General was uncannily accurate when he said it would cost €1 billion and the Department did not update its assessment.
Again that is a question for the line Department. The general question is for the Taoiseach but a detailed question should go to the line Department.
The question reads "To ask the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that the strategic management initiative is achieving its objectives". I am instancing a case where it is manifest that it is not doing that and I submit that the question is perfectly in order.
The Deputy should just ask the question.
In the Department of Health and Children on the same day, the Travers report has revealed, if we are to believe what the Taoiseach's spin doctors are saying to journalists, the taxpayer has been exposed to the tune of between €500 million and €2 billion for a shambles that, according to the Taoiseach, has gone on since 1976. How did the strategic management initiative focus on better performance in the Department of Health and Children? That information was elicited in this House by an Opposition Deputy. Is it not the case that the present Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, was sent off to investigate this issue as a result of questions from Deputies Perry and Kenny on this side of the House? Where was the strategic management initiative in Hawkins House when all that was happening? It beggars belief that the taxpayer is stuck with these bills and that the Taoiseach says the strategic management initiative is working.
I was answering a question asking if the initiative has made major improvements in the modernisation of the public service, staff flexibility and output of Departments. That is not to take away from the fact that some Departments work under enormous pressures on day-to-day issues. In fairness, one of the issues Deputy Rabbitte mentioned, the Travers report, which I read in detail last night, shows the pressures under which senior members work on day-to-day issues. It shows in one way that many of the surveys and reports carried out on the health reform package of recent years are correct that it is not best practice for the Department to deal with the day-to-day issues as well as the policy issues. It is a good advertisement for the Health Service Executive where one group deals with policy issues and not day-to-day crises because otherwise people focus on one thing they should do and they go off and actions are not followed up. It is a human issue.
It is fair enough for the Deputy to say these things should not happen. Someone can look at the issues, as we see in the Travers report, and identify the procedures that should be followed. If it were all done perfectly, that would happen but it is not so exact that everything is written down and followed. The Deputy is right; it is costly in these issues.
The indemnity scheme is a different issue. Deputy Rabbitte has answered the question himself. The Government decided that a redress scheme would be established following the apology I gave on behalf of the Government six years ago. The view was that it was preferable for congregations to make a meaningful contribution instead of no contribution and instead of the State being required to sue the congregations later. If all the 5,000 cases had gone to court, the legal fees would have been enormous and it would have been traumatic for the victims. Many of the congregations had their properties tied up in trusts and it would not have been possible to receive the money. Congregations are not like companies, as we found in those discussions, and the questions of illegal acts by members had been fully tested. It was not a simple question of being able to take their assets from them. The Government had decided to establish a redress scheme on way or another. I have not seen the report yet but I will look at it when it is issued.
The strategic management initiative is giving taxpayers better value for money and facilities in public services. The PA report stated that the modernisation programme should deliver better services for the resources provided. Now staff are more flexible and there are longer opening hours in Departments. There is new technology that allows people to use the Internet for tax returns. Resources are better targeted, the expenditure review initiative is in place, management performance is monitored, staff are recruited and managed more effectively and there is greater use of competitive promotion. Organisations are structured more effectively, with separate agencies such as the Courts Service being established. All this has taken place under SMI, not to speak of customer reports, strategy statements and annual reports of scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General. They have substantially improved the public service in spite of the pressures on some Departments. There are issues surrounding that and issues in the report today of which account will have to be taken.
We all make mistakes but democratic accountability in this House corrected the mistake in respect of charges being illegally levied on older people in nursing homes and other State institutions.
Is it not the case that whatever about the success of the strategic management initiative, enormous cost overruns are being identified throughout the entire Civil Service every year by the Comptroller and Auditor General? The over-70s medical card is a good example where the Department underestimated by 66% the cost of the scheme. The Secretary General of the Department may well say that he did not get any political notice of the decision to introduce that card. When the Taoiseach says that the Departments work under great day-to-day pressure, I am sure that is true.
The Deputy should ask a question. Again I point out that supplementary questions should relate to the strategic management initiative either in general terms or in the Taoiseach's own Department. Questions concerning matters relating to other Departments should be addressed to the Minister concerned. That is a ruling of the Chair in accordance with the predecessors who have always ruled in that regard.
We are talking about the efficacy of the strategic management initiative and I am showing the loopholes.
In regard to individual Departments, detailed questions should be addressed to the line Minister.
As I have said before, if the Ceann Comhairle had his way, he would not permit us to ask the Taoiseach anything, whether he went for a jog this morning——
The Chair will implement the Standing Orders laid down by this House and if the Deputy is not happy with them, he knows how to deal with them.
——or what he had for breakfast, if he opened any pubs recently or if he went to Croke Park or Tolka Park. This is the acid test of the strategic management initiative and I am asking the Taoiseach if it is not difficult to reconcile his praise for the performance of the initiative with the lapses that still occur in various Departments. I have instanced the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children. Is it the case in the Department of Health and Children that it is not the acute day to day pressure it is under — as I am sure it is — but this has been known to the Department since 2001 at a minimum? The Travers report for all I know, I have not read it, will show that it was known to the Department.
The Deputy has made his point. He should ask a question rather than make a statement.
Is it not difficult to reconcile what the Taoiseach has said about the efficacy of the strategic management initiative and the actual experience before our eyes from a number of Departments, including the Department of Health and Children in the debacle which is going to cost the taxpayer up to €2 billion?
May I ask a question on the same point? I referred to the guidelines for Ministers and implementation of the Public Service Management Act 1997 which was part of the strategic management initiative. I have just seen the report we have awaited. Central to that report is a letter on page 157 from the soon to be former Secretary General who said he briefed the Minister for Health and Children at the time.
Deputy, that does not arise.
It does and I will tell you why.
The Deputy should ask a general question on the strategic management initiative. A detailed question should be addressed to the Minister.
If you let me finish I will tell you why it arises, Sir. One of the outcomes of the strategic management initiative was the Public Service Management Act 1997. One of the central elements of that Act was that Ministers are responsible for appropriate strategies and systems to ensure the organisation is in the place.
That matter is for a different Minister.
Just a second. The notes taken at that meeting indicate that the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, was due to brief the Taoiseach on the public charges. Page 158 of the Travers report refers.
If the Deputy has a brief question of a general nature we will hear it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, took notes at that meeting.
The Deputy is making a statement.
I am not making a statement.
The Deputy is making a statement about the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely. Will the Deputy please ask a general question? We are not having a debate.
Did the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, under the strategic management initiative, brief the Taoiseach, as referred to on page 158 of the Travers report, on the fact that the knowledge that these charges on public service beds was illegal at that meeting?
That matter does not arise out of these questions.
It does.
The Chair has ruled on the matter. It does not arise.
It does. It arises from the Taoiseach's own guidelines in 2002 on ministerial responsibility. They are the guidelines issued by the Taoiseach in respect of the strategic management initiative.
Perhaps I can make a brief reply on the specific question and then I shall answer the more general question. I had no discussion with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley. However, the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, said in the correspondence on that occasion that two issues arose, one being the distinction between eligibility and entitlement for the over 70s. He said he mentioned that to me on the margins of a vote. The other issue he mentioned was that his Department was seeking to get definitive legal opinion on the proper definitions of what was going to happen. That is what he said he told me. We did not have any discussions about the broad substance of the issues. That is the question on which the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, was interviewed and gave that evidence, which is on page 157 or 158 of the report. That is the——
It is on the bottom of page 157 and the top of page 158.
This is Michael Kelly's statement, not Deputy Callely's.
The then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, was asked if he followed-on and if he raised it with the Minister. I will let the Minister answer that. In relation to me, he said that there was a major issue related to the distinction between eligibility and entitlement and that his Department was going to seek definitive legal advice. As the Deputy is aware having raised the issue, the Department did not seek definitive legal advice until the Deputy raised it here in October. That is the answer to that question.
On the broader issue of the Public Service Management Act 1997, which was one of the first I introduced in September 1997, it governs who is responsible and sets out the arrangements. Section 4 of that Act determines how issues are designated and dealt with and how various functions are delegated. That Act works and is followed very clearly in my Department and I am sure that is also the position in other Departments.
We have all been busy reading the Travers report but would the Taoiseach agree it has significant implications for the strategic management initiative in the way Ministers interact with senior civil servants? In this instance, it seems that senior civil servants are taking the rap and that the politicians are equally culpable, if one reads the Travers report.
As people will see when they read the report, from 1976 to the time Deputy Kenny raised this issue — I acknowledge this because I was involved in the discussions in the autumn — even though this matter was raised on so many occasions over 28 years, there was never a memorandum on the issues. This is extraordinary but it is a fact, and I am not blaming or dumping on anyone. I think the reason for it, and this is my honest opinion, is that they believed that the principle of people paying was fair and right. I think we all agree with that. The problem is that each time it went back they came to a conclusion that it did not require legislation and even when there was legal advice from some of the health boards they stuck to that position. Even at a later period and at the meeting to which Deputy Kenny has referred they said they would get legal advice. That was in December and still that had not happened in October. That is the dilemma. I do not know why it did not come forward as a full memorandum, which as Mr. Travers said, is the issue. People will have to study the report.
There are some issues on staffing that have to be dealt with. I am not into blaming all public servants over a 28 year period. They came to a decision, based on what they thought was an interpretation that was formed in 1976, and they believed they were right in that all the way through that period.
On 10 March 2004 the Secretary General has a clear recollection of discussing the matter with the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. While no memorandum was issued a discussion took place on the issue.
Deputy, that matter does not arise.
It is a very important issue. Please allow the Taoiseach to answer.
We have to move on.
I do not want it said that I did not answer the question. The former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, has a different view on that. I know he will come into the House tomorrow for the debate to give his view on that matter.
There is a conflict.