Vol. 872 No. 2
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide a list of the requests received by the Department for additional staff that were approved, partially granted or refused in respect of all Departments and agencies in 2014 and in 2015 to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12044/15]
Will the Minister provide a list of requests received by the Department for additional staff from other Departments and agencies that were approved, partially granted and, in particular, those refused last year and this year to date?
A full list detailing all of the individual requests for additional staff received from every Department since the beginning of last year will be forwarded to the Deputy directly. This information will reflect positions taken under the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the Civil Service and the public service which was introduced in 2009 as an emergency response to the crisis in the public finances. As the Deputy is aware, in the budget last October I announced the new arrangements for bringing the moratorium to an end.
Overall, the information will show that, even under the moratorium, public service numbers increased by more than 1,400 in 2014, the first increase in overall numbers since 2008. This was the reform dividend about which we spoke here. At budget time last October I also made provision for an additional 1,700 teachers, special needs assistants and resource teachers, as well as additional front-line staff in the health service and 300 new Garda recruits. I expect many of these to come into the public service during the course of this year.
I will not start on a confrontational note, but I had hoped to receive the list here.
I have it and can pass it over. It is extremely long.
That is why I asked for it. I am pleased the Minister has it and that I will receive it during the course of the day.
It will be e-mailed to the Deputy directly.
The purpose of my question was to examine the details. I accept that there has been an increase in staff in key areas, as the Minister mentioned. In this regard, the recruitment to An Garda Síochána is welcome. Some of the additional teaching staff will replace teachers who are leaving. Maintaining teacher numbers is primarily designed to reflect the growth in the population, but the pupil-teacher ratio in schools is not being reduced. I am concerned about services in County Laois about which I have heard in the past year, in particular orthodontics. Every child is meant to be checked by a dentist before leaving primary school and receive treatment, but this is not happening owing to a lack of staff. This is but one example; I will also mention speech and language therapy. This is partially due to the recruitment embargo.
I will not deny the pressure we have kept on reducing staff numbers has had an impact, but the contribution made by the reduction in the overall public pay bill was a critical contributor to the economic improvement we can see, particularly in the ESRI's report published today. I will send the Deputy two very long tables. Most requests are granted because Departments know what will make it through and what will not and normally they do not apply for something which does not have a prospect of being successful. The Deputy will see there is a very long list and I have tried to be as flexible as I can in the case of critical positions which adversely impact either on public services or carrying out normal public duties such as in Revenue. The Deputy will have a chance to go through the list in some detail and more questions might arise after he has had an opportunity to do so at his leisure.
I accept in good faith the list the Minister will send me and he can expect a response from me once I have seen it. Inevitably, I will concentrate on critical areas in which requests for staff were not approved. While I welcome the recruitment of 300 gardaí, they are not sufficient. We have all seen the need for additional gardaí and the reduction in the number of gardaí on the streets. If it is of any assistance to An Garda Síochána, I support a call for further gardaí to be recruited. I am concerned about the number of gardaí in drug squads being reduced in certain areas. I am also concerned about the system of penalty points, some of which are issued by gardaí and others through the use of GoSafe cameras, as there is a need for greater concentration on road safety in some areas. I am also concerned about fire services throughout the country. I am most concerned, however, about front-line services and have mentioned several areas in the health and education sectors. I look forward to going through the list during the course of the day and the Minister will hear from me.
The ethos I have tried to bring in in the past four years is that when there is a pressure point, it is not always about a need for more resources but for proper analysis of how we deploy the resources we have available. The Deputy mentioned An Garda Síochána. The Garda Inspectorate has conducted a comprehensive review which has showed up some shocking things and major reform of An Garda Síochána is under way because of it. One of the issues is the haphazard way in which gardaí are deployed. There is no scientific policing mechanism. It is as if as we have always done this way, it is the way we will do it. It is the same in the case of Garda vehicles. There is no structured way for how they are deployed. Part of the objective of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is not only to control expenditure but also to provide for rational expenditure to most effect and the greatest benefit of the citizen. The reform element in all public expenditure - I know that the Deputy will agree - will continue to be an important feature.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the time frame for rolling back the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation; the order and manner in which this will be done; his meetings to date and planned meetings with unions in the public sector on this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11966/15]
My question relates to the rolling back or unwinding of the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation, known as FEMPI. How does the Minister plan to achieve this and what is the order and manner by which he proposes to roll it back? What meetings has he had to date to discuss these matters? What meetings does he plan to have with the unions in the public sector on the issue? Will he give us some sense of the timescale in which he envisages the unwinding of the FEMPI legislation to occur?
The Haddington Road agreement, underpinned by the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation, forms the cornerstone of public pay policy until 2016 when it is due to expire. The agreement which contains a number of measures directly affecting the pay of staff is delivering and making a significant contribution to the achievement of the Government's fiscal consolidation target to have a deficit below 3% of GDP this year. The ongoing recovery in the economy is, in no small part, due to the contribution of public servants, as I acknowledge repeatedly.
The public service pay bill must be maintained at sustainable levels. The recovery has facilitated reinvestment, as I have said, in some front line services. In 2015 some €300 million will be reinvested in health, education and An Garda Síochána. The FEMPI Acts deliver about €2.2 billion in reduced public service remuneration and pensions. Notwithstanding our improving economy, because of the magnitude of that sum of money the economy could not sustain the immediate restoration of all of those reductions. Most public servants and their representatives understand that.
I have indicated that, following receipt of the first quarter Exchequer returns and engagement with my colleagues in government, it is intended that I talk to the public service unions regarding the gradual unwinding, in parallel and consistent with the improving economy, of the FEMPI Acts. This is consistent with the approach adopted in securing agreement on the Haddington Road agreement through engagement with those directly involved.
In essence, early in the next quarter I intend to open the books in the same way, explain what we need to do, hear the proposals from the public service unions in terms of the priorities they would set for unwinding and to engage on that in a way that is sustainable. That would have to be voted upon and it is my hope that we would have an agreement before I present the expenditure books to the Dáil in the next budget.
I agree with the Minister insofar as I do not believe anybody imagined that in one fell swoop pay, pensions and so on would be restored. I do not think there was any such expectation. I would like more detail from the Minister in respect of how he envisages the unwinding of FEMPI playing out. Where does he propose to start? Does he propose to start with pay or pensions? Is he considering flat rate or percentage increases?
The Minister indicated he has not yet formally opened discussions with the unions. Has he met unions or anybody else informally in respect of these matters? I was struck a week or more ago by the fact that one of his senior officials was sounding warnings that a public service pay deal was not certain and seemed to be throwing cold water on any notion of such a pay deal. I would like him to respond to that.
The Deputy asked a number of important questions. On whether a public pay deal is certain, the answer is certainly not. The Haddington Road agreement was far from certain and, as the Deputy knows, its first iteration was rejected and we had to go again. I hope I can secure an agreement and that we can have an organised approach to restoring pay to the public service. Those working in it have not had a pay rise for seven years and those earning over €65,000 have had three reductions in pay. They have made a significant contribution to achieving the fiscal targets and restoring the good fortunes of the State.
In terms of my priorities, I want to first get agreement at Government level and have an open discussion with the public sector unions. I have already met the recently formed organisation of all public sector pensioners, the first time there has been one co-ordinated group. It will not be left out and I have made a commitment in terms of any pay deal. Pay and pensions will be addressed in parallel.
The Minister proposes to address pay and pensions in parallel.
That is what I hope to do.
That is what the Minister hopes to do. He might, then, when he responds shed some light on his thinking as regards flat rate versus percentage increases. As he knows, there is a debate at play at the moment among trade unions and public servants as to which would be the better route. He referred to pay cuts for those earning in excess of €65,000. Could he again confirm that the emphasis and priority in the unwinding of FEMPI will be to address the public and civil servants on the lowest pay rates and to work on that basis? He indicated that previously, but I would like him to confirm that will in fact be the case.
In respect of those earning over €65,000, we will implement the Haddington Road agreement in full. Part of the agreement is the winding back of some of the pay reductions during the course of 2016 and 2017, and into 2018, if I recall. We will be faithful to the agreement we have, as the trade union and public service sides have been faithful to it in terms of delivering on their sides. I have my views on whether there should be a flat rate or percentage reduction. I want to hear the views of all the public sector unions, but it is and has been my view that those on the lowest level of income should benefit disproportionately more. I will try to achieve that objective in the negotiations.
3. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total number of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, State bodies, semi-State bodies and State agencies under his Department on the State's payroll; the total cost to the State of the payout to these non-executive directors, including fees, travel costs and other expenditure; and to outline his plans to reduce the number of these chairpersons and directors and their fees. [11977/15]
This question addresses the issue of directors of semi-State companies, semi-State agencies, State agencies and others under the aegis of the Government and Minister. I would like to elicit the facts, rather than rhetoric, on the number of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, semi-State bodies and State agencies on the State's payroll and the total cost to the State from the payout to these non-executive directors, including fees, travel and other expenditure. Does the Minister have any plans to reduce the number of these chairpersons, directors or their fees? I want to know what they do and if they are worth it.
In response to the Deputy's question the total number of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, State bodies, Semi-state bodies and State agencies under the remit of my Department is two. In the case of the Public Appointments Service, the chairperson is paid €11,970 per annum. Currently, the only expenses paid are to the Chairperson in respect of travel from Belfast which is in the region of €200 approximately per annum. The Institute of Public Administration do not pay fees to board members. It should be noted that while my Department is responsible for determining the fee rate policy for chairpersons and members of commercial and non-commercial State bodies, it is the responsibility of each Department to implement the approved fee rates for chairpersons and members in each of the State bodies.
The fee rates for both commercial and non-commercial State bodies were reduced by 10% in 2009. The FEMPI Act 2009 provided for a further reduction of approximately 6% in the fees payable to members of the boards of non-commercial Public Service bodies with effect from January 2010. There are no current plans to further reduce the fee rates payable to chairpersons and members of State bodies. Similarly, while my Department has responsibility for policy on travel and subsistence it does not have a direct role in controlling the application of that policy in each individual State agency and body.
The code of practice for the governance of State bodies sets out the rules with regard to travel and subsistence in non-commercial State bodies. Page 20 of the code states that non-commercial bodies should adopt and comply in all respects with the circulars issued from time to time by my Department regarding travel and subsistence.
That was not the answer I wanted, as the Minister knows. I asked about those on the State's payroll, not those on his payroll. It is regrettable that he came up with an answer like that. Perhaps he could refer it back and come back with a fuller and more complete answer.
I will answer.
Perhaps the Minister could help me in a broader way. His colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, wrote an eloquent document when he was in opposition on the number of people on State boards. He said there were 2,416 sitting on State boards and that 2,007 State agencies were created between 1997 and 2007.
Perhaps the Minister may wish to answer as a member of the Government - that is fine - but I believe he has a responsibility in this matter. I am trying to establish whether these people are simply what they used to call in the City of London "grunt-a-month guys"?
I am sorry.
They used to call them "grunt-a-month guys". They came in, sat down, took the cheque and said nothing. What performance criteria are they supposed to meet? To whom are they accountable? Is it only to the Minister?
I will come back to the Deputy again.
Under the rules of the House and the law I am responsible for the agencies under my direct remit. Each line Minister is responsible by law and statute for agencies under his remit. To be helpful to the Deputy I have asked each line Minister to reply directly to him in order that he can have a comprehensive view. I hope that will meet the point.
The more substantial point Deputy Ross makes relates to what these people on State boards do. We set up an entirely new appointments system which will be transformational, not instantly but over time. In respect of each State board and agency, each Department is required to set out bespoke criteria for appointment, including the balance and skill-set that is required. Then, it must advertise on the Public Appointments Service. The Public Appointments Service must evaluate all applications against the criteria set down and then make recommendations to the Minister. I believe that will be transformational.
I thank the Minister for that. How many of these people have been removed from their positions in recent years? How many have actually come before the relevant Minister? I presume they are accountable to the Minister. How many of them have been removed? There were 2,416 according to the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, when he was in opposition. It would be interesting to know how many have been removed. Have they all got a clean bill of health? Have they all been reappointed every year?
I wish to ask a second question. In 2009, a global economic forum was held in Dublin Castle. The Government of the day received volunteers from many among the Irish diaspora overseas who offered to serve on these boards. How often has that been taken up? Has it been taken up by any of the Ministers under this Administration? Are they still looking in that area or have they given up?
Board members are not appointed every year. They are appointed for a term, as set out in the statutes that determine each State body. It is not normal to remove people except for stated misconduct during the course of duties. There would be consequences and liabilities accruing to the State for simply firing people, as the Deputy is aware. Besides, the vast majority of people who take up these appointments do so for the good of the State and they do a very good job.
Deputy Ross made a point about volunteers. As I said, there is an entirely new appointments system which is not confined to those who were privileged enough to attend the diaspora forum. It is open to everyone anywhere who wishes to serve on a State board to make application and be considered for it. That is far more open and transparent. It is not a matter of a person being willing to serve, it is a question of the bespoke criteria that are required, whether the person meets them and, if he does, then he may apply and he will be individually scrutinised by the independent Public Appointments Service to judge whether he meets the criteria.
I wish to pay tribute to the many hundreds of people who give exemplary service to the State, for a small remuneration in many instances.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in view of the approaching centenary of the 1916 Rising if he will provide details on the projects being undertaken by the Office of Public Works in preparation for this event; the current state of progress in regard to these projects; the total amount of money being spent by the office on 1916 celebrations in 2015 and 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12045/15]
In view of the centenary of the 1916 Rising, which is fast approaching, I am keen ask the Minister whether he will provide a list of projects being undertaken by the Office of Public Works in preparation for the event and to set out the current state of progress. In particular, I seek details of the allocation of funding for 2015 and, separately, the amount for next year. There is no point in not preparing this year for the major event that will take place next year. I am keen to know what is happening this year and details of the funding available this year for these events.
As I indicated previously to the Deputy in a question answered on 16 December last, the Commissioners of Public Works have a particular role in respect of the commemorations. This arises from the responsibility they have for the care and maintenance of national monuments and other heritage properties in State care. In many cases, these are iconic locations and important in the context of the forthcoming commemorations. The commissioners also have an operational role in respect of supporting the various planned official State commemoration events involving logistical support and organisation. This is derived from their long experience of similar events such as the national day of commemoration, the EU Presidency and so on. This will be an important element of the work of the OPW throughout 2016.
Full details of the Government programme in respect of 2016 are due to be announced shortly. I understand it will be next week. We will continue to supplement this calendar with other appropriate events added on an ongoing basis.
The major projects included in respect of the OPW are set out in the following table:
|
Site |
Details |
|
Kilmainham Gaol |
Development of new visitor centre at the former Kilmainham Courthouse Refurbishment of Kilmainham Gaol museum and creation of a complete new gaol exhibition Restoration of the roof of the east wing at the gaol |
|
St Enda's Museum, Rathfarnham |
Completion of the programme of restoration of the 18th and 19th century follies dotted around the park which were used by Pearse in the staging of dramatic pageants Continuation of the rolling programme of exhibitions and events has been under way since approx 2010 at the Pearse museum and park at Rathfarnham Permanent exhibition on the life of P.H. Pearse in the exhibition area of the museum to be launched in 2016 |
|
Arbour Hill |
Presentation works to the site (complete in 2015) |
|
Garden of Remembrance |
Universal Access works (complete in 2015) Conservation works at the Children of Lir statue (complete in 2015) |
|
Pearse Cottage |
Provision, by Údarás na Gaeltachta, of a new visitor facility and cultural centre at Pearse cottage site (which is managed by the OPW), including a new exhibition Programme of new universal access works at the Pearse cottage |
|
Mac Dhiarmada Homestead |
Major structural, roof renewal and thatching project in 2013 Leitrim County Council are planning the development of a car park at the Mac Dhiarmada site and the provision of a visitor facility in nearby Kiltyclogher (OPW will be supporting this with material, interpretation etc.) |
|
National Concert Hall |
A project to refurbish certain rooms and recital areas within the National Concert Hall including the Kevin Barry room and other areas (complete by end 2016) |
The Government has provided a grant of €5 million to support the signature capital works development in Kilmainham Gaol. The project in the National Concert Hall has been allocated €5 million. In addition, the OPW estimates that approximately €1 million to €2 million from within the existing capital funding is being devoted to supplement this and to resource works at various other heritage locations. Funding is also being provided from other sources, including, for example, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, which is providing support funding for the roof renewal project at Kilmainham Gaol's east wing.
It is good to begin to hear a little of the detail. I discussed the matter during the Estimates debate on 11 February with the Minister of State, Deputy Harris. At the time it was clear that the Estimate for the OPW heritage services this year represented only a 1% increase on last year, a matter of a couple of hundred thousand euro. That is not much in the circumstances. The Minister has said there would be between €1 million and €2 million to help. Perhaps we can get a breakdown of that.
In particular, I welcome the expenditure in areas like Kilmainham Gaol. Some of it is coming from other Departments but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the OPW have a role and that is why I am pursuing it. In particular, I am keen to know the plans in respect of the General Post Office, especially the Moore Street site and the role of the OPW in this regard. Everyone knows the 1916 leaders moved to the Moore Street site from the GPO. We need the issue of the interpretive centre there dealt with. Various logistical, planning and financial issues arise, but the men of 1916 did not give up their lives for planning, zoning issues or NAMA issues. It will be a shame on the men of 1916 if we cannot overcome this 100 years after their Rising.
I am fully in agreement with the Deputy. We need to go the extra yard to ensure that we do not allow disputes over planning or anything else to in any way obstruct from the singular dignifying remembrance of a seminal event in our history. The GPO development will be particularly important. As the Deputy is aware, there is ongoing construction work there which will be completed in time for 2016.
I agree with Deputy Fleming that the difficulties in respect of the Moore Street site and the initial plans of Dublin City Council need to be overcome. I have said that those of us in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will do all we can to ensure that the site in Moore Street, which was the final location of the insurgents' activities, would be in a proper state by 2016.
I have listened to the Minister refer specifically to the site in question. I am speaking in a personal capacity but I believe my party would support my view. I would support special legislation brought by this House specifically to deal with the planning issues. There is a precedent. Planning permission for prisons are authorised by this House. The House is the planning authority for them. Given all the complexities, the Thornton Hall planning did not go through the normal procedures. It is possible that it would never have got through the hoops. I think the same happened another prison in Cork, although perhaps that is under way. The town of Portlaoise is in my constituency and planning is not a major issue there because the prison is located there.
This House has acted as a planning authority on major issues like prisons. I suggest the least we could do at this stage is remove the power from local planning authorities and that would remove the local issues from the case. This is a national issue. We are coming up to the centenary of 1916 and, if needs be, I call on the Minister to consult with his colleagues in government to see whether one of them or the Minister himself could bring the necessary legislation to the House to resolve in the national Parliament the planning issues once and for all.
I thank the Deputy for the offer. It is something I will bring to the Cabinet sub-committee on the 1916 Rising commemoration. We certainly intend as a Government to ensure there will be a fitting site on Moore Street and that it will not be in its current state by next year.
5. Deputy Shane Ross asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the average age of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially owned State companies, State bodies, semi-State bodies and State agencies under the aegis of his Department on the State's payroll; the number of directors on the board of more than one such body; the number of women; and his plans to make savings in this area. [11978/15]
This is related to a question I asked before. It is to ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform how many directors are on the board of more than one such body. I am talking about all State bodies. Perhaps the Minister has a reply that applies to himself only, which would be inappropriate, but if he says he can produce the information, that is fine. I also ask how many women are on such boards and the plans, if any, he has to make savings in this area.
The total number of chairpersons and non-executive directors of State or partially-owned State companies within the remit of my Department is two, both of whom are female. As neither the Public Appointments Service nor the Institute of Public Administration asks board members for their ages, I cannot answer that part of the question. Neither of the two people concerned is a member of any other State board. The Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 sets out the process for appointment to the Public Appointments Service.
Every other Department will respond directly to the Deputy with regard to bodies within its remit.
I understand the misunderstanding. Perhaps, however, the Minister might help me a little on a more general level. He stated in answer to the last question that they did not come up for annual review, which is true. They should, but they do not. That is something at which the Minister might look. Will he tell me what evaluation procedures the people concerned come under? The reality is that while he has spelled out that there is a new system in place which is in its infancy, an appointment is ultimately made by the Minister on every occasion. Even in the worst of the publicly quoted companies, under the new code of conduct, all directors must be subjected to an annual evaluation process. It is unsatisfactory, but it is at least a gesture to the need for an evaluation process. I do not know whether that happens annually or if it happens at all in the case of directors of semi-State bodies.
The Deputy will be aware that we enacted legislation last year to put the NewERA entity on a statutory basis. We gave it a statutory role in the evaluation of the capacity of directors of commercial semi-State companies. We also gave it a statutory role in terms of their appointment. I set this out in the new process for appointment. The Deputy will find that anybody appointed to a commercial semi-State company is fit for purpose in meeting the skills set determined by the NewERA entity for that company. Ultimately, the final appointment is made from those deemed to have met the criteria laid down by NewERA and determined by the PAS. The final appointment is made by a Minister, as is right and proper, because he or she is accountable to this House. I would not like to hive it off to someone who was not accountable.
Has the Minister considered handing over to others the power to appoint? Does he have discretion in this case to reject the advice put to him on candidates?
It does not fall to me to make appointments. They are made by the line Minister in the case of each semi-State company, as determined by the grounding legislation used to set up the company. It is a matter for the line Minister to make the final appointment from those on the list. If he or she judges that there is nobody on it who is appropriate or suitable, he or she can go outside it, in which case he or she must make a public statement on it, explaining why those who were shortlisted were not considered appropriate and the person he or she has appointed is. This is all laid out in the guidelines.
