Vol. 693 No. 1
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will implement the recommendations of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes in so far as they apply to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30239/09]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to implement the reduction in staff numbers in his Department as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30253/09]
3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to implement the reduction in staff numbers in the Office of the Attorney General, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30254/09]
4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to implement the reduction in staff numbers in the Central Statistics Office, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30255/09]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to discontinue the National Economic and Social Development Office, with the exception of the National Economic and Social Council, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30256/09]
6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to discontinue the Newfoundland and Labrador partnership, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30257/09]
7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to discontinue the active citizenship office, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30258/09]
8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to discontinue the public service modernisation unit, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30259/09]
9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans to discontinue the Law Reform Commission, as recommended by the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30260/09]
10 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his views on the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes; its implications for his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30601/09]
11 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the concern expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the recommendation contained in the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes to abolish the Law Reform Commission; his views on the recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31145/09]
12 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to implement the recommendations of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes as they relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33522/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, together.
Planned expenditure levels for my Department and the associated offices in my Vote group will be considered as part of the 2010 Estimates and budgetary process. The report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes will be considered. Decisions on all issues arising from that report will be a matter for the Government. While the Estimates process is ongoing, I assure the House that my Department and the associated offices will play their part in achieving the overall expenditure reductions required by the Government. In that context, separate programme funding for the work of the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership and the Taskforce on Active Citizenship will cease in 2010. The future work of those bodies will be supported by existing staff in my Department. The separate offices in these areas have been discontinued, which will give rise to significant savings on my Department's Vote. The National Forum on Europe has been discontinued, which will also give rise to significant savings. When the budgetary process for 2010 has been completed by the Government, I anticipate that significant additional savings will be achieved in my Department, the National Economic and Social Development Office and the Central Statistics Office.
There has been a reduction in staff numbers in all Departments and offices as a result of Government policies that have been introduced since the economic crisis began. In the case of my Department, I anticipate that the number of core Civil Service staff will fall by approximately 10% as a result of the various schemes introduced to date. I am aware of particular pressures on demand-led areas of expenditure in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, which may make it difficult to achieve substantial reductions in expenditure in those areas. In that regard, the House recently approved a Supplementary Estimate of €4 million for this year in respect of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the Minister for Finance outlined in the debate on the Supplementary Estimate, it was financed from savings in my Department and the Central Statistics Office. The need to continue to ensure sufficient funding for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor is to the fore in the current discussions on the 2010 Estimates. I assure the House that my Department and the associated offices will make significant savings on expenditure in 2010. This process will be managed in a way that minimises disruption to the valuable public services they provide. It would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that at this stage, pending the outcome of the Government's deliberations on these matters.
I want to pursue the Taoiseach on some of the information he has given to the House. Have the Taoiseach and his Department formed a finalised view on the implementation of the recommendations in the report of an bord snip nua that apply to the Department? Given that four months have passed since the publication of the report, I presume its recommendations have been assessed. It is a "chicken and egg" scenario, in the sense that it is not entirely clear whether the report of an bord snip nua reflects what the Department wants to do, or whether it is the other way around. I assume the Taoiseach and his Department have formed a definitive view on which of the recommendations will be implemented. The Taoiseach indicated some direction of thinking in the case of some of the bodies with regard to 2010. He mentioned that the Ireland Newfoundland Partnership will be discontinued in 2010. He referred to the National Forum on Europe, which has already been discontinued. However, he did not comment on a number of other bodies under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, which were referred to in the report of an bord snip nua, including the National Economic and Social Forum and various partnership bodies. What is the Taoiseach's intention regarding those bodies in 2010?
The Taoiseach referred to a 10% reduction in staff in his Department. The reduction recommended in the report of an bord snip nua appears to be higher than this. It refers to a reduction of 36 out of 237 staff in the Department of the Taoiseach and a total of 77 for the entire range of Departments and agencies under his remit. Do I take it from what the Taoiseach is saying that the staff reductions will be lower than recommended in the report of an bord snip nua?
As I stated in my reply, these reports are being considered in the context of the Estimates process and political decisions. We have indicated the savings we are seeking, namely, an adjustment of €4 billion for next year. The McCarthy report recommends a higher figure. It is not a question of making all the cuts in 2010 but a matter of political consideration as to which savings or recommendations will be agreed upon as relevant in this instance.
In the context of the adjustment that is to be made, my Department will make the necessary contribution in line with the ongoing political deliberations and considerations. I have indicated some of the areas under review and where we are doing things differently already. I do not wish to elaborate on that as it is a matter for the Government to sign off on these issues when discussions are complete. We will seek to make decisions in a way that meets the Government's objective of having every Department contribute towards the adjustment according to its means based on the size of its budget, and also in a way that will seek to minimise the impact on public services.
What is the Government's position on the report of an bord snip nua? Since it was published, the Taoiseach has maintained it will inform the Government's decisions in respect of the Estimates and the budget, yet individual Ministers have taken a pop at it as they have seen fit, including the Tánaiste, who stated there was a lot in it that did not make sense. Has the Government accepted the report? Do I understand from the Taoiseach's last reply that the Government's intention is to implement the recommendations of the report, but not all in 2010? Is it the case that the Taoiseach intends to implement some of the recommendations in 2010 and the remainder in the remaining years? Has any decision been made to rule out or reject recommendations in the report? Alternatively, are we to assume all the recommendations will be implemented incrementally and that we will be told what recommendations are to be implemented in the budget for 2010?
The report has been submitted to the Government. It forms part of the considerations of the budgetary process. This process is confidential until the Government makes its ultimate decisions. The outcome of our deliberations will become clear when the budget is announced and the Estimates process is complete. The deliberations are ongoing and there are bilateral discussions taking place as the Estimates process takes shape. Progress is being made in this regard. As with any other Government, including those supported in the past by Deputy Gilmore, the budgetary process remains part of the deliberative process until final decisions are taken.
In a previous reply, I was simply making the point that the assumption the Deputy seemed to be making in his first supplementary question was that all the recommendations of the McCarthy report, which advocate cuts of €5.4 billion, are about to be implemented. That was an exercise conducted on behalf of the Minister for Finance and his Department by the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes and its report is for consideration by the Government in the context of bilateral discussions taking place between the Department of Finance and other line Departments as we seek to identify the necessary expenditure savings that will be made. Those discussions are ongoing and are taking place in the context of the budgetary and Estimates process. How we intend to proceed will become very clear. When the report came to Government, Ministers were invited to comment on it and to suggest savings either in line with the recommendations or by an alternative means.
The bottom line is that an adjustment of €4 billion will have to be made in the context of the budget, primarily on the expenditure side, as the Minister has indicated. The preparation of the budget is an ongoing process. The McCarthy report is helpful in the discussions that are taking place. The ultimate decision has to be taken on the recommendations, on whether they are modified, adapted, changed or not to be proceeded with. That is a matter for political decision by Government when the process is complete, which will be in the coming weeks.
Has the Taoiseach become involved in the discussions between the Department of Finance and the various Departments on Colm McCarthy's report and its implications? In particular, is the Taoiseach aware of the sense of anger and fear that has been created by that report? Some have suggested the report has faded into the background and that he has done the Government's dirty work because he has delivered a report proposing massive cuts in public services and if one does not implement its recommendations, one can say to the people, "There you are; at least I didn't go as far as McCarthy, I am the best thing since sliced bread, or at least my Minister for Finance is."
Key areas of the McCarthy report have not had much concentration to date. I refer in particular to an area I know is close to the Taoiseach's heart, namely, moltaí McCarthy i leith maoiniú na scéimeanna Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta. Nach bhfuil siadsan ag teacht salach ar an méid a bhí le rá ag an Taoiseach nuair a thoghadh é ar an gcéad dul síos, nuair a dúirt sé go mbeadh sé sásta tacaíocht iomlán a thabhairt don Ghaeilge? An raibh aon chomhráite ag an Taoiseach leis an Aire Ó Cuív faoi impleachtaí tuairisc McCarthy i leith athbheochan na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta?
As I said in an earlier reply to Deputy Gilmore, the McCarthy report was an examination of every area of current expenditure that was undertaken by a group of people, who were asked to do so by the Minister for Finance. They duly reported. It is now a matter for political decision by the Government what role and part that report will play in our final decisions relating to the adjustments that have to be made. That is where that is at. Those people undertook a job based on the terms of reference they got, they did that job, and I thank them for doing it.
Maidir leis an nGaeilge, agus scéimeanna atá ann don Ghaeilge, ba cheart go mbeadh scéimeanna réalaíocha againn ó thaobh an ábhair sin mar gheall ar an fhadhb airgeadais atá i gceist go ginearálta ó thaobh airgeadais phoiblí sa tír seo. Níl aon rogha againn ach mionscrúdú a dhéanamh ar gach scéim atá againn, na haidhmeanna atá á bhaint amach mar gheall orthu agus conas a bheimid in ann na scéimeanna a chur chun cinn sa bhliain atá romhainn nuair is léir nach bhfuil an t-airgead céanna againn i mbliana agus a bhí againn go dtí seo. Tá an díospóireacht sin ar siúl idir an tAire Airgeadais agus an t-Aire Ó Cuív mar atá le gach Aire eile. Tá sé ar intinn againn tacaíocht a thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht agus go mbeidh scéimeanna réalaíocha againn mar gheall ar na polasaithe sin.
Mas sin an cás, ní bheidh deireadh leis an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta. Má tá muid chun cabhair a thabhairt don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht, cuireann sé isteach orm féin mar ionadaí poiblí nach bhfuil sé ar ár gcumas faoi láthair leabhair as Gaeilge a chur ar fáil do dhaltaí sna meánscoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. We are still unable to provide up-to-date Irish books for students who pursue their courses through Irish. It is an absolute disgrace that we cannot manage that in this day and age. I simply make that point on foot of the Taoiseach's comment to Deputy Ó Snodaigh in respect of the Gaeltacht and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The McCarthy report states:
The Public Service Modernisation Division has responsibility for promotion of the modernisation of the Civil and wider Public Service. . . . The Group observes that there is an overlap between the work of this division and the activities of the Public Service Modernisation Division in the Department of Finance . . . The Group considers that responsibility for the implementation of public service modernisation decisions should be located in the Department of Finance given its mission to achieve greater efficiencies across the public service and its leading role in managing many of the recent important public service modernisation initiatives e.g. rationalisation of State agencies.
That has implications for the Taoiseach's Department. Arising from the report's observation that there is an overlap between the public service modernisation division and the Department of Finance, how does the Taoiseach envisage his Department being reformed to deal with what the report recommends in this regard?
Second, does the Taoiseach agree with the statement made by the Tánaiste, that many of the proposals in the McCarthy report make no sense at all? She made that comment when speaking on behalf of the Government in the House. Does he accept that comment?
I understand there are 259 staff in the Department of the Taoiseach at present. The Department of Finance has taken responsibility for economic affairs, social partnership has run into difficulties and Northern Ireland and European affairs are dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs. What is the role of the Department of Finance in assigning people to areas where there are co-ordination, leadership and other responsibilities? The Taoiseach said that the role of the Department of Finance does not rule out "the need for us to assign people to these areas because we have co-ordinating, leadership and other responsibilities". I accept that. How does the Taoiseach envisage his Department fitting in with what the McCarthy report proposes? Does it have relevance to the Taoiseach's Department and does he still envisage the leadership, co-ordinating and other responsibilities his Department has continuing as heretofore?
As the Deputy said, there are recommendations in the McCarthy report on that matter. All these recommendations must be subject to political scrutiny and decisions will have to be taken on them. Some are more urgent than others, while some are more important than others. However, all of them must be considered on their merits.
As I listened to the Deputy's supplementary question, I thought for a moment he was going to suggest that the Department of the Taoiseach should be got rid of altogether since it was not doing this, that and the other.
Others would, but I would not go that far.
I thought: "Surely to God he will not try to talk himself out of the only job that might be available to him."
No, just the incumbent.
The co-ordinating role in the Department of the Taoiseach across a range of Government policies must continue. The question of how we can do that most effectively and efficiently is the issue under consideration. However, it does not absolve the Taoiseach of the responsibilities of the office or the Department of its efforts to service the requirements of a Taoiseach and ensure that it has the expertise and people available to assist the Taoiseach in reaching points of view and contributing to the debate that goes on across the Government on a range of issues.
I have established a Cabinet committee on public service modernisation and transforming public services, and I chair that committee. It is important that the authority of the Taoiseach be behind that effort. It is an ongoing effort and it is part of the discussions that are taking place at present. The Secretary General of the Department of Finance has various responsibilities, including that which relates to the public service. There would also be people attending to ensure that the overall co-ordinating role of the Department of the Taoiseach is understood, stated and seen in that context.
People refer to overlaps, but there are complementary roles to be played here. There is expertise in both Departments which must be used co-operatively on an ongoing basis in order that all the perspectives might be brought to bear in the context of how management can seek to advance the necessary agenda that is under discussion at present.
In respect of public service numbers, there is currently a ban on recruitment in place and this is having an impact. To what level will public service numbers be reduced in 2010? Does the Taoiseach believe there is a role to be played by a voluntary redundancy scheme? The HSE commented on this matter earlier in the year and my party put forward the view that up to 15,000 voluntary redundancies could be accommodated. I am sure many Deputies have been in contact with people who have indicated to them that they would like to leave the public service now but that they cannot obtain sanction in respect of redundancy. A flood of experienced people — gardaí, nurses and others — are leaving the public service at present.
Does the Taoiseach have any information with regard to the status of the HSE's announcement some months ago in respect of voluntary redundancies? People are extremely concerned — they have probably contacted the Taoiseach in this regard — about the possibility of their gratuities being taxed, which is adding to their concerns in respect of leaving the public service early.
As stated previously, it is unavoidable that there will be an adjustment in the public service pay bill, particularly as it forms such a large part of public expenditure. At present, approximately 35% of day-to-day expenditure — €20 billion per annum — relates to public sector pay and pensions. The final decision on how the necessary reductions will be achieved is a matter for the Government to consider in the context of the forthcoming budget.
I must emphasise that progress in talks with the public service unions would be of great assistance to the Government in reaching its decisions. During the past week there has been a series of meetings involving public service employers — led by the Department of Finance — and the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. In an effort to explore the possibility of savings in each part of the public service, a number of sectoral level meetings involving, for example, HSE management and the health unions, the Department of Education and Science and teachers' unions, etc., have also taken place. These meetings adjourned over the weekend in order to allow the parties involved to refine and cost options and will formally resume this afternoon. Some sectoral level engagement did occur yesterday.
In light of the level of detail required on a sector-by-sector basis and the complexity of assessing the impact of particular measures in calculating associated cost savings, it is expected that talks with the unions will continue — and, we hope, intensify — during the course of this week. The examination of options and the costing exercise is without prejudice to agreement by either side, Government or trade union, as to the acceptability or adequacy of measures or proposals put forward. We must all ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that measures to achieve the essential reduction in the pay bill will have the least possible impact on services to the public.
The purpose of the talks is to explore the possibility of achieving the necessary reductions in the public service pay bill on an agreed basis. The parties must be given the space to do that. A range of options is being considered. However, it would not be of assistance to go into further detail at this stage. Time is short and the Government needs to see signs of progress this week, particularly in light of the comparatively short lead-in time to the December budget.
I wish to acknowledge that during the course of this year all public servants have been obliged to adjust to the fact that the pensions levy has been imposed by Government and come to terms with pay freezes, etc. In many respects this is a difficult time for everyone in the public and private sectors, particularly in the context of their commitments. The fact of the matter is that there exists an issue that must be dealt with. In fairness, the interaction taking place is at the initiative of trade unions which suggest there are alternative means or measures that could be considered in an effort to make the adjustment we deem to be necessary. In this regard, people need to be given the time and space to consider all the issues in as wide and comprehensive a manner as is possible. We will have to wait to see what emerges. As I said, the process is without prejudice. This is a complex area as people associated with the industrial relations area will be aware. Sector by sector different issues in terms of the structures in pay scales arise. We must allow people to engage in a constructive fashion to see, based on the realities that confront us all, how we can move forward.
What is the Taoiseach's Department doing to co-ordinate the production of a new e-government strategy to take advantage of the cost savings that could be achieved in health care, education, social welfare delivery, perhaps, through working with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources? More than 18 months ago, the Government agreed with the Fine Gael motion on the need for a new e-government strategy and the savings and efficiencies that could be achieved in this regard. I understand the Taoiseach's Department is co-ordinating that effort.
An assurance was given at the time that a new e-government strategy would be published two months later but this was subsequently abandoned on the basis that it was being worked on. We have seen nothing since then. An opportunity exists, in the context of being forced to make savings, to introduce new measures that can utilise technology to try to save Government money and to provide people with services in their homes which they would otherwise have to travel to avail of.
I agree with Deputy Coveney that the situation confronting us makes it imperative that all initiatives, including the e-government initiative, form the basis of a broader agreement on how we can provide more efficient and effective public services in the future. It is true that there is a need to utilise technology in a way that will deliver services that are more customer oriented and citizen focused while at the same time ensuring those areas of the public service where personal interaction between the service provider and the person requiring the service is maintained. There are applications where technology can apply that will bring important savings. We are committed to doing this. The template for transforming public services is a considered approach in this regard. The renewed programme for Government refers to the need to appoint a chief information officer to assist in ensuring the expertise available in the public and private sector on technology is brought to bear in terms of the manner in which we currently deliver public services and how we use technology to improve the delivery of that service.
Will a new strategy be published?
Apart from publishing strategies, discussions are ongoing which provide us with a good opportunity to make real progress on an agreed basis for the introduction of a greater level of e-government in our deliberations.
The Taoiseach has just taken the opportunity to put on the record of the House a statement in respect of the talks that are under way between officials of the Department of Finance and the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Will the Taoiseach clarify the Government's objective with regard to the talks? When I questioned the Taoiseach earlier about the report of an bord snip nua, he responded that it would inform Government decisions in respect of the Estimates and the budget. He placed emphasis on the Government making those decisions and its prerogative in that area. Does the Government intend to conclude an agreement with the trade unions in respect of pay and adjustments in the public finances in advance of the budget? With regard to the sectoral discussions to which the Taoiseach referred, are the recommendations in the report of an bord snip nua on the table?
With regard to the identification of savings or expenditure adjustments that would help to assist the process, the recommendations of course would form part of the discussion. Where we can find agreement on the implementation, it is all the better for us. The Government has decisions to take and wants to do this on the basis of the greatest measure of agreement — full agreement if possible. It wants agreement not just on the pay issue because social partnership can provide an opportunity for agreement on other issues also. However, the issue I was talking about today related to public sector pay and what we seek to achieve in that area. Discussions are ongoing and they involve considering and costing all options and seeing what might form the basis of a solution. These discussions are on a without prejudice basis.
The negotiators and people discussing the issues should be accorded the time and space to enable them to get on with the task of seeing whether it is possible to find an agreed way forward that will provide us with the necessary savings on the basis of maintaining public services as best we can while meeting the financial targets.
I will allow a final supplementary question, as we have spent some time on this issue.
I appreciate that, but the issue is central to what is happening in the country. The Taoiseach has said that he is anxious that time and space is given to everybody in the process to talk. The problem is that the budget is due in five weeks' time. What is the Government's objective in this matter? Is its objective to try to conclude an agreement on these matters in advance of the budget or is it engaging in a consultative exercise which will guide or inform it in its decision making when the time comes to make those decisions? The reason I ask is that I am a bit confused as to the Government's disposition in this regard.
The original questions were in respect of the McCarthy report. However, on one hand the Taoiseach has been giving the impression that this is a document that is of some interest to the Government in making its decisions on the budget, while, on the other, we are being told that sectoral discussions are taking place. It is difficult to understand how we could have meaningful sectoral discussions if the issues identified in the McCarthy report relating to particular sectors are not the subject of discussion. What is the game plan or what is the Government's intention or objective? I appreciate the Taoiseach cannot predict the outcome of discussions, but what is the Government's objective? Is the objective to try to reach an agreement or not?
I have made the situation clear and there should be no confusion about it. I made it clear in a previous comment to the House that the purpose of the talks is to explore the possibility of achieving the necessary reductions in the public service pay bill on an agreed basis.
Therefore, the talks are just exploratory.
They are more than exploratory. Everyone recognises the seriousness of the situation the country is in and the need to make an adjustment. A range of options is being considered and it is not helpful to go into further detail at this stage simply because discussions are under way. Time is short and the Government must see signs of progress this week, given the comparatively short lead-in time to the December budget. That is the position. The purpose of the talks is to explore if the necessary reductions in the public service pay bill can be achieved on an agreed basis.
In fairness to the public sector unions, they suggested they believe there are alternatives to simply looking at pay rate reductions. We were anxious to explore with them how they would see that being implemented given the size of the reduction required. That is being discussed on a without prejudice basis and it would remiss of any Government not to sit down with their employees' representatives in an effort to find a way forward that meets the requirements of the situation and to see if agreement is possible.
Arising from the statement the Taoiseach made following Deputy Kenny's supplementary question, is it the view of the Government that an agreement in the first instance would be formed across the public sector or would it be done on a sector by sector basis? I was interested in the Taoiseach's remarks that discussions are going on sector by sector, with teachers talking to the Department of Education and Children and the Department of Finance, while health workers are talking to the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Finance. Is the Taoiseach saying that if savings and efficiencies can be found on a sector by sector basis and a potential agreement arose from that, those sectors could be saved from a blanket reduction in pay if such savings were to be found? Is the Government looking for a global agreement or a sector by sector agreement?
It is the purpose of Government to find a saving of the order that we have outlined throughout the public service. There are different personnel involved in every sector who engage in industrial relations issues on an ongoing basis. We would use that expertise and interaction on a sectoral basis as part of an overall effort to obtain the savings. There are different pay structures and issues that arise because there is not a uniform pay structure across the public service, it depends on the sector a person is in. That leads to complexity, and the need to cost options, to sit down to discuss this and go through it in detail so people are satisfied about what has been suggested and the costs and savings involved, which must be allowed to take place as talks intensify during the week on a strictly without prejudice basis.
