Vol. 827 No. 2
6. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of staff in his Department involved in or responsible for overseeing the budget and expenditure of the Department of Health; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2624/14]
It has been reported that officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform are helping to oversee the budget and expenditure of the Department of Health. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to give us some details. How many officials are involved? To whom do they report? Will they publish reports?
I thank the Deputy. One principal officer, two assistant principal officers and two administrative officers are assigned to the health Vote section within the labour and enterprise division in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The Vote section is managed by an assistant secretary as part of his overall brief.
Is the Department of Health being treated differently from other Departments? Are the officials mentioned by the Minister working full-time in the Department of Health? Will they report to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform? When did their oversight start and will the results of their work be published?
No, this is not unique to the Department of Health. An assigned individual or group of civil servants from the expenditure division of the old Department of Finance used to monitor the Vote of each line Department. That has always been the way it has been done. Every year Departments and offices set out their expected profile of expenditure on a month by month basis. During the course of the year each Department and office reports monthly to my Department on the actual performance against the expenditure profile set out. I bring these to the Government which now looks at departmental expenditure on a monthly basis. It does not take a huge amount of time for us to do this. The bigger spending Departments such as the Department of Health take up more time than smaller spending Departments in terms of the focus of my Department. Although a Supplementary Estimate of just under €200 million was needed by the Department of Health, I am gratified that the out-turn figures for last year's general overall performance of all Departments show that we spent less than we had profiled. This singular achievement reflects well on line Departments and the monitoring of expenditure generally.
Are these officials involved in making decisions? What authority do they have to make decisions or changes? Are they involved in macro-managing or micro-managing the expenditure and the budget of the Department of Health? In the energy expenditure area, for example, are they considering a move to combined heat and power plants in hospitals, a move which I understand would save approximately €20 million? At what level of detail are they looking?
The specific work referred to by the Deputy is not carried out by the Vote section of my Department. It is carried out by the reform section. As the Deputy will be aware, we have reviewed how we procure across the public service. We decided last year to establish a centralised office of Government procurement. We have set a strict and specific target of €127 million across all sectors for procurement savings this year. A large chunk of that saving which will be made by means of better procurement models relates to the Department of Health. We have a target of saving €500 million through better procurement in the next three years. These ambitious targets will be driven by a different section in my Department - the office of Government procurement - which will work out a procurement plan across all Departments.
7. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when and if the freedom of information legislation will be extended to include Irish Water within its remit. [2667/14]
As the Minister knows, the Opposition in this House refused to take part in the debate on the establishment of Irish Water because of the absolute dearth of information on this Government initiative. We found out a few days ago that as part of the expenditure of more than €200 million on the establishment of Irish Water, some 300 workers at Irish Water had been taken to a yoga laughter therapy workshop. Many citizens feel the people and this House are being laughed at. There is no accountability for this body through parliamentary questions, the freedom of information regime or the Comptroller and Auditor General. I would like the Minister to explain what he intends to do on the freedom of information front.
As the Deputy knows, I have responsibility for the area of freedom of information. He is also aware that I indicated last December during the Committee Stage debate on the Freedom of Information Bill 2013 that it was my intention that Irish Water should be made subject to freedom of information legislation at an early stage following the enactment of that legislation. On the basis of recent developments instanced by the Deputy, following the commencement of the Irish Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 and taking into account the likely timetable for the enactment of the new Bill I am progressing through the House, I have concluded that arrangements should be made as expeditiously as possible for Irish Water to come under freedom of information legislation from its legal establishment date in 2013. Rather than awaiting the enactment of the new freedom of information Bill, I have decided to utilise the powers under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 in respect of Irish Water. The Act provides that in these circumstances a positive resolution of both Houses is required before an order can come into force and freedom of information legislation actually applies to the public body concerned. I propose, subject to the approval of each House of the Oireachtas in due course, to give Irish Water 30 days following the making of the order to make the administrative arrangements required to be fully compliant with freedom of information legislation.
I welcome this announcement by the Minister. There is a sense of tremendous outrage. People feel that when the Government was deciding on the road it was going to go down, it adopted the wrong model by choosing Bord Gáis as the lead organisation in this regard. It is a question of a certain kind of semi-State culture. In fairly recent times we saw Pádraig McManus and other executives in the semi-State sector being paid more than €600,000 per annum. Will the freedom of information measure announced by the Minister be retrospective? Will Deputies be able to delve into spending already taking place such as the €86 million being spent on consultants and the €15.7 million being spent through the local authorities, as we heard last night? Will we know whether the local property tax has been utilised to fund this vast expenditure on the part of Irish Water? Will this measure be retrospective? Will the applicability of the freedom of information regime to this organisation be confined to a limited period? Some reports have suggested it will not extend beyond 2017. Will we be refused access to information on the affairs of Irish Water after that date on the basis of commercial sensitivity, etc.?
The Deputy's first question was related to whether this would be retrospective. It is my intention to provide for the inclusion of Irish Water in the freedom of information regime from its date of legal establishment as a subsidiary of Bord Gáis Energy - 17 July 2013. I have instructed my officials to prepare an order to that effect. I hope we can provide time for it to be considered next week, if the House is agreeable and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government has cleared the drafting of the order.
The Deputy's second question was related to whether Irish Water would be covered by the freedom of information regime for a temporary period. When I was asked the same question at a press conference last week, I indicated that I did not think the freedom of information regime should be like the hokey cokey, with people stepping in and out again. Once it is in, it will stay in, unless, of course, there is some issue to be dealt with in the future. It is certainly not our intention that there would be a competition.
Is the Minister referring to privatisation?
As long as it remains a monopoly - the absolute decision of the Government is that it will remain a State monopoly - it should be subject to freedom of information legislation.
On the related matter of parliamentary questions in this House, we are familiar with the very unsatisfactory performance of Departments like the Department of Health when we inquire about HSE matters and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport when we inquire about Irish Rail matters.
Deputies who inquire about matters related to State or semi-state bodies, such as the Health Service Executive or Irish Rail, are referred to the relevant organisation, which will then provide some fragmentary information after a long period has elapsed. Given his responsibility for reform of the public service, is the Minister also interested in doing something to address this matter?
I note the clár features a Bill in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts which relates to accountability to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Will the Minister also pursue this matter?
The Deputy's first set of questions, which relate to the processes of the House, are more appropriate to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or Oireachtas Commission, probably the former. While I will be mindful of any recommendation emanating from the House, as a member of the Government I should not dictate the manner in which people are held to account in the Houses. We have had solid evidence in recent weeks that the new committee system is working effectively and there is growing confidence that State companies can be brought before the line committee, whether in the area of the environment, health or anything else, to be asked probing questions. This should be the norm in terms of parliamentary activity and I suspect that will be the case.
As Deputy Lucinda Creighton, who tabled Question No. 8, is not present, we will move on to Question No. 9.
9. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the State is achieving value for the taxpayer from its privatisation programme; the use to which the funds raised will be put in 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2674/14]
The purpose of the question is to elicit the Minister's views on whether the State is achieving value for money for taxpayers from the current privatisation programme. I refer to the sale of Bord Gáis Energy, a number of ESB power plants for which payment to the State will be made by way of dividend, and the national lottery licence. I also ask him to outline the use to which the funds raised will be put, including whether they will be used for debt reduction purposes. The Government spoke of using the proceeds from the privatisation of State assets for job creation. I understand the Government is considering using some of the proceeds for a redundancy programme - in other words, to pay for job losses. I ask the Minister to comment.
As I informed the House on a number of occasions, in disposing of State assets it is a primary concern of the Government that value is secured for the Exchequer and fire sales are avoided. As we demonstrated at an earlier stage of the Bord Gáis Energy transaction, Ministers are fully prepared to stop a transaction process if we consider that bids received are not delivering acceptable value.
That said, I am happy that value is being achieved in the transactions that have been completed or brought close to completion. Subsequent to our decision that value was not apparent in the Bord Gáis Energy transaction, revised bids were received which offered materially increased value for the company. A consortium comprising Centrica plc, Brookfield Renewable Power Inc and iCON Infrastructure has been selected as preferred bidder for Bord Gáis Energy on the basis of its revised bid, which has an enterprise value of up to €1.12 billion. Furthermore, ESB's sale of its 50% shareholding in Marchwood Power in the United Kingdom in November achieved a price in excess of expectations, which should realise €140 million in dividends for the Exchequer this year.
As to the use to which these funds will be put, the Deputy will be aware of the Government's consistent position that the funds released from asset disposals should be used, in one form or another, to support job-creating initiatives in the economy. At budget time, I factored a total of €110 million into the Estimates for 2014 in respect of projects supported from the sale of State assets. Of this sum, €45 million will fund part of the advance works associated with public private partnership projects. Specifically, €25 million will be spent on the Grangegorman project and €20 million on road public private partnerships. The remaining €65 million will be spent on the continued roll-out of the additional Exchequer investment projects announced in 2013 in energy and schools. Additional elements of this stimulus plan will be rolled out as the various asset sale transactions are completed and the proceeds are realised.
Will the Minister provide a timetable for the receipt of €1.2 billion from the privatisation of Bord Gáis Energy, the parent company of Irish Water? The Government has demanded a dividend of €400 million from the ESB, of which €140 million has been achieved through the sale of a plant in the United Kingdom. I understand the company has decided to sell two power plants in the midlands to achieve the balance of the dividend. What are the expected proceeds from the sale of the national lottery this year? Until last year, the Government insisted that half the proceeds from the sale of State assets would be used for debt reduction. Now that the troika is no longer in town, will the Minister confirm that is no longer the case? Perhaps he does not wish to say that loudly as he did not refer to it this morning. I would welcome his views either way.
I am concerned that the Minister is saying there are people on the public payroll with no job to do who should perhaps move on. He also stated he would consider using the proceeds of sales of State assets to pay for a redundancy programme. Using this income to eliminate rather than create jobs is new to me.
I did not say that in any reply this morning. I will try to deal with the series of questions the Deputy asked. As to when we will receive the money from the sales of assets, the sales must first be signed off and concluded. Bids have been accepted but there is a process involved. For example, as we saw in the case of the national lottery licence, a secure transition of staff is required. This often requires the intervention of the Labour Court, ballots by staff members and so on, and takes a little while. For this reason, in the case of the national lottery, the issue has not yet been fully nailed down. While I cannot say definitively when the various transactions will be completed, the transactions involving the national lottery, Bord Gáis Energy and Marchwood Power should all be concluded this year.
We must adhere to a process. As I have explained previously, we cannot bring all the money in the energy sector onto the public balance sheet in one year. We must comply with EUROSTAT requirements on such matters. As a result, the revenues will have an impact on more than one year's Exchequer returns.
The Minister is essentially saying he wants to stage manage the timing of receipts from the sale of State assets to assist the budgetary process next year. There is an unexplained figure here. Despite the requirement for an adjustment of €3 billion last year, the Government announced an adjustment of €2.4 billion on budget day. Some of the balance of €600 million was made up using the proceeds from the sale of State assets. The Minister indicated previously that these proceeds would be used for a particular purpose. He now says some will be held off until next year to help the budget next Christmas. Perhaps the adjustment in next October's budget will be very light given that the Government proposes to deliberately hold back proceeds from the sale of State assets to help meet deficit targets next year.
I ask the Minister to address redundancies in the public service, an issue to which he did not refer. The Minister for the Environment, Communications and Local Government has spoken in the House about leaks, boil-water notices and vulnerable water supplies. Why not use the proceeds from the sale of the parent company of Irish Water, Bord Gáis Éireann, to fix water problems, rather than wait for water charges to be introduced to every household to fund such works?
The Deputy has asked a number of questions and put a twist on what I said. Legally, I cannot transfer all the money from sales of State assets to the balance sheet this year. It is not a matter of choice but a requirement under EUROSTAT rules. On deficit reductions, some countries - I will not refer to individual states by name - proposed an enormous sale of state assets as a bookkeeping exercise to balance their books. The problem with this approach is that while balancing the books in one year through income from such sales is well and good, what does one do the following year? EUROSTAT requires states to use a mathematical formula based on the dividend paid by the State company in question as the maximum a country can account for on its books on an annualised basis. We must comply with European regulations in these matters.
The proceeds from the sale of State assets will give us the capacity to introduce a further stimulus plan. Some of the very good projects cited by the Deputy could be considered when we receive additional Exchequer moneys to spend on capital works.
I must move on as six minutes have expired. As Deputy McLellan, who tabled Question No. 10, is not present, we will move to Question No. 11.
11. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to revise the valuation system to provide for a fairer basis for commercial rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2677/14]
A serious discussion is needed on commercial rates. The Minister will be aware that serious difficulties that arose in Waterford are being replicated across the country as the rates revaluation process is rolled out nationwide. Businesses do not have the ability to meet the demands being placed on them. The purpose of Question No. 11 is to ascertain the Minister's views on the issue.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 18 and 28 together.
On a point of order, as the Deputies who tabled Questions Nos. 18 and 28 are not in the House, we should not take the questions together but should confine the slot to six minutes in order that we can move on to questions tabled by those who are present.
If that is the wish of the House, is it agreed to? Agreed.
The Government published the Valuation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 as part of its legislative programme. The Bill proceeded through Second Stage in Seanad Éireann in October 2012. Let me state the Bill will not change the basis of valuation for rating purposes. This will continue to be net annual value, NAV, the hypothetical rental value of a property as assessed by reference to a specified date. This is a long-standing principle of the rateable valuation scheme in Ireland and ensures equity and fairness in the values of commercial and industrial properties across local authorities.
The main purpose of the Bill is to accelerate the national programme of revaluing every commercial and industrial property in the country which is being undertaken by the Valuation Office, as the Deputy stated. The Bill amends several provisions in the Valuation Act 2001. These amendments include a number of technical changes to Part 5 of the 2001 Act which deals with how valuations, including revaluation of entire rating authority areas, are carried out. The Bill also proposes to amend Part 6 which deals with the carrying out of revisions of the rateable valuation of individual properties within rating authority areas.
I am mindful of the concerns and have met people from Waterford regarding this matter. The difficulty is that there has not been a revaluation in such a long period of time. We need a quick and expeditious revaluation, regular valuation after this and a robust appeals process to ensure that where anomalies arise, they are addressed.
I accept that there has not been a revaluation in some time, but in 2013 the rates for one business in Waterford were €2,963. In 2014 this figure will increase to €7,647, a difference of 158%. For another business the amount payable was €4,373, which will increase to €10,080, an increase of 131%. One gets nothing for this any more because one must pay extra for water, the refuse service and in car parking charges. One cannot ask a business to sustain this increase. The business community does not understand the process or how the Valuations Office has reached these new NAV amounts. Transparency needs to be improved. Appeals take more than 12 months to complete and they involve delays and hassle. We have tried to curtail costs in many areas of business, but this is a cost over which businesses have no control and for which they get nothing in return. They face increases of 158% and 131%. A survey of 60 businesses in Waterford showed the average increase was 62%.
The Deputy will only hear complaints from those who properties have been valued upwards, not downwards. There is an anomaly in the case of people who maintain a high rate of valuation which cannot be justified. One cannot collapse everybody down because that would hollow out the rateable base of the local authorities and impoverish them. I will give specific examples. In south County Dublin 49% of ratepayers had their rates reduced, while 39% had them increased. In Fingal County Council 65% were reduced, while 30% increased. The Ceann Comhairle might be interested to hear that in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 54% were reduced, while 46% were increased. We need a balance. The dilemma was that there had not been a revaluation for so long. We had anomalies whereby the properties of some businesses were completely overvalued in the current climate, while some were completely undervalued. Migrating to fairness is difficult because those whose properties have been revalued downwards want immediate action, while those whose properties have been revalued upwards-----
I accept that there are some winners, but there are many losers also. Businesses cannot afford to lose at this stage. I wish to come back to the point on transparency on how the NAV is reached in various areas. Does Minister have plans to increase staff numbers in the Valuation Office, particularly to deal with appeals?
We have halted the Bill to engage in extensive consultation. We have engaged in more consultation on this legislation than on any other legislation with which I have been charged since coming to office. It is in the Seanad and it is my intention to bring it to this House during this session when we will be able to answer all of these questions in detail. There is no simple solution because we are trying to address an historical legacy in terms of inaction in this area by having a proper rateable valuation system, including self-assessment and independent evaluation spot checks to ensure it is reasonable. We also want to have a robust and transparent appeals mechanism. It is my intention to put this in place.
13. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which he continues to be satisfied with the performance of each Department in meeting its targets in the context of public expenditure, savings and reform; the extent to which this applies to all subsidiary bodies or agencies; if any particular or specific requirements are identified to continue to meet such targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2621/14]
25. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the extent to which provision has been made throughout all Departments and bodies under their aegis to ensure compliance with the Government strategy in respect of spending and reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2622/14]
The question is an attempt to ascertain from the Minister the extent to which he remains satisfied about the efforts made by various Departments and their respective subsidiaries on cost-cutting savings measures and reforms and whether particular Departments seem to fall short habitually.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 25 together.
Gross voted expenditure has been reduced from its peak of €63.1 billion in 2009 to €54.6 billion in 2013. This represents a reduction of approximately 13.5% between 2009 and 2013. Estimated Voted expenditure for 2014 will be in the region of €53 billion, with a targeted general Government deficit of 4.8%. We have made remarkable progress.
This radical improvement in the sustainability of the public finances has helped to achieve our successful exit from the EU-IMF programme of financial assistance. It has been delivered through the efforts of all Ministers and Departments and their agencies to seek savings, pursue efficiencies and manage within constrained budgets, often while meeting increasing demands for the public services they deliver. In this respect, the public service reform plan has been an essential part of the Government's approach in addressing the challenges posed by reduced resources. The reform plan requires a refocus on business processes and adjustments to the way all public bodies use available resources. It promotes changes to the way individual public servants go about their daily work and greater flexibility in the way services are provided, for example, with greater use of technology and shared services. The Government is committed to making fundamental changes to the way the public service operates to safeguard the delivery of essential services in a way that is in keeping with the needs of a modern society, while driving and maintaining value for money.
Managing the delivery of public services within its budgetary allocation is a key responsibility of each Minister. Several measures are in place to help ensure these budgetary targets continue to be met I have referenced some of them. The Department is in regular communication with all Departments and offices to ensure expenditure is controlled and we monitor their draw-down of funds from the Exchequer against the published expenditure profiles. Where necessary, the Department regularly meets line Departments to review financial management. There is regular reporting to the Government on these matters and we publish information monthly as part of the Exchequer statement.
On the reform front, the Deputy will be aware of the public service reform plan published last week, together with a review of performance to date under the original plan. This shows the strong progress made to date by each Department and agency in pursuing the reform plan. Following last week's publication, Departments and offices are preparing new integrated reform delivery plans which comprise central cross-cutting reforms, as well as organisational and sectoral reforms, and outline the progress made in the implementation of the Haddington Road agreement. The plans will maintain a particular focus on increasing efficiency and improving outcomes for service users. Progress will continue to be monitored by the Department and reported on regularly to the Cabinet sub-committee.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Given that some Departments and services are demand-driven, is there particular recognition of their respective positions and those of the subsidiary bodies? To what extent do particular Departments receive unfavourable mention in this regard, notwithstanding what the Minister has just stated?
In shaping the overall initial estimate we have regard to projected demand. It is part of the normal process and provided for.
At the end of the day, if unavoidable demand has to be met, for example, in a 24-7 area such as the health service, we provide a Supplementary Estimate at the end of the year to meet the shortfall. Despite the best efforts of a Department, if it does not have the capacity to meet demand and we need to provide for it, additional resources must be allowed. We have done that each year we have been in government. However, there is a finite amount available to the State in terms of resources and in terms of what taxpayers can pay and their resistance to additional taxes that are imposed. We are always striking a balance and driving efficiencies is what people demand because the public hate waste. That is why there is always controversy when there is a perception we are not getting value for money.
I thank the Minister again for his reply. Do the various bodies under the aegis of Departments continue to comply with Government policy in this regard? Are there obvious exceptions?
No. With regard to pay, all the non-commercial State bodies are fully adherent to policy and we drive that. They are subject to FEMPI and so on. We have had a long debate regarding commercial semi-State bodies and they must operate in a commercial way but all the other agencies and bodies are carefully managed and scrutinised now by Departments and we have also implemented a strong rationalisation programme of State agencies over the past three years.
14. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether all senior appointments to taxpayer-funded positions, including appointment to State boards, should be publicly advertised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2676/14]
There is general agreement there should be more openness about this process. We should agree on it and it is a question of how we go about making this happen. Some positions are referred to Oireachtas committees, for example, chief executive officer posts but we need to be more broad ranging and perhaps more people should be eligible for these posts and should apply through public advertisement.
As the Deputy will be aware, open publicly advertised competition is a key principle of senior level appointments to posts across the public service reflecting the Government's commitment to ensure such posts, which are central to the effective performance of our system of public administration, are filled by high calibre candidates.
In my area of direct responsibility, recruitment into the civil service, including senior appointments, is by way of open competition and all recruitment competitions held by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, are advertised in one or more of the national papers or on the PAS website at: www.publicjobs.ie. Application forms, together with all relevant details, are made available when competitions are announced. Potential candidates can register their interest in a position on the PAS website and will then automatically be notified by e-mail when the competition is announced.
With regard to senior level appointments to the Civil Service at above principal officer level, the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, holds competitions for and advises Ministers and Government as appropriate on appointments to civil service posts at Secretary General, deputy secretary and assistant secretary and equivalent levels. Since early 2007 the policy has been that open competitions are held for assistant secretary and deputy secretary and equivalent posts and more recently this policy has been extended to Secretary General posts.
With regard to recruitment to the wider public service, various Ministers, in accordance with the legislation setting up public service bodies or agencies under their aegis, are responsible for matters relating to senior appointments in those bodies. Clearly, the public interest is usually best served by opening public service posts to the widest pool of candidates. The Deputy will recall that the recent appointment of an Ombudsman was made following an open and public request I made for expressions of interest from appropriately qualified candidates.
I thank the Minister. We are agreed on the principle but it is not being applied. The Minister mentioned his Department. Following Question Time, we will debate his appointments to the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. I never saw the advertisements seeking people to be appointed as an ordinary member or as the new chairperson in the newspaper. The appointments were made in secret behind closed doors and we will rubber-stamp them in the House in a few minutes. I do not object to those who will be appointed but the process was not as outlined by the Minister in reply to this question. Where is the breakdown between his stated policy for his Department and his motion to appoint people to two senior State appointments? He flouted everything he said in his reply to make them.
The board of Irish Water has been appointed. I did not see advertisements for board members. Fine Gael got a councillor on the board. I do not know whether the Labour Party gets a nominee but the Minister might inform us where all these advertisements were placed.
We will debate the SIPO appointments in a minute. As the Deputy will be aware, these are restricted appointments. He has read the Act. The chairperson has to be a serving or former member of the Supreme Court or High Court. I received two formal applications from such qualified people and I recommended one for appointment. The other appointee must be a former or serving Member of the Oireachtas but not of the European Parliament. The outgoing appointee was a distinguished member of the Fianna Fáil Party and his predecessor was a distinguished member of the Labour Party. The nominee I propose is a distinguished former Member of the House representing the Fine Gael Party, which is the largest group in the House. That is a reasonable way of progressing such an appointment.
I appreciate the Minister received applications. However, members of the public watching these proceedings heard the Minister refer to advertising posts but then he qualified that by stating these are restricted posts under legislation.
That is the law.
I acknowledge it is the law.
There are not many former Supreme Court or High Court judges.
I have no objection to the gentleman and I will have no issue with the appointment. However, the impression the Minister gave is that all these posts are publicly advertised and when I pressed him on a particular post, he replied it was an exception under legislation. The public hear the good news but when the issue is teased out, that transpires not to be the case when one delves into particular appointments.
I refer again to the most recent appointments, which were to the board of Irish Water. I never saw advertisements for this. That was a closed shop. Many of those on the board are Bord Gais employees or connected to political parties. The Minister will say this does not relate to his Department but we all agree on the principle of public sector reform and reform of the political system. Perhaps he will reinforce what he believes in discussions with his ministerial colleagues.
I am restricted regarding the appointments that will come before the House shortly. However, I am reviewing the base legislation and we will debate that. I must be careful not to show disrespect for high office but I am not sure that the chairman of SIPO should necessarily be a former judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. We can examine that when we review the legislation. I am glad we have two distinguished and honourable representatives to fill the vacancies under the current legislative provision.
