Vol. 961 No. 3
6. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to review the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47144/17]
Has the Minister any plans to review the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012? I ask because the current position of the Minister of State at the Department of Defence is that the Act does not provide for pre-existing superannuation arrangements and, consequently, a 2009 arrangement, CCR 421, which allows for a supplementary pension for retired commissioned officers to be in place.
Under section 41 of the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform can initiate a review, or an actuarial review, or an actuarial review and revaluation of the single public service pension scheme, also known as the single scheme. I have no immediate plans for the carrying out of such a review, bearing in mind, in particular, that the single scheme has been in place for less than five years, which is a relatively short time in pension terms.
Since its commencement on 1 January 2013, the single scheme has been the default pension scheme for new-recruit personnel across all sectors of the Irish public service. It is administered principally by individual public service employers, who are known as "Relevant Authorities", and who discharge or oversee key member-facing responsibilities, such as the collection of contributions and the tracking of pension benefit accrual. The single scheme already has 60,000 members across the public service, with further significant membership growth in prospect. Against that overall background, the single scheme is, of course, subject to ongoing monitoring by my Department, as is the operation of the 2012 Act more generally.
I am asking for a review because there is an anomaly in respect of the Defence Forces. From 1995, commissioned officers of the Defence Forces have paid a PRSI class-A contribution, and their pensions are fully integrated with the social welfare system. They were eligible for a supplementary pension, provided by the agreement in 2009, CCR 421, because they reached retirement age at 56. This age went up to 58 and there is a gap before the individuals concerned get their State pension. The implication, where the agreement is no longer in place, is that a new entrant to the Defence Forces - from 1 January 2013 - who is mandatorily retired at 58 or 60 would have a final benefit less than the value of the State contributory pension. New-entrant Defence Forces officers will be at a loss of approximately €12,390 until they reach the age of retirement, at 66. This is to increase to 68.
The Department of Defence acknowledged in 2009 that the compulsory retirement age set the individuals concerned apart from those in other areas of the public service. There is an anomaly whereby the agreement is no longer recognised. There is a gap between mandatory retirement at 58 and the age of 66. The affected officers are actually getting less than what officers who joined before them are getting.
In respect of members of pre-existing public service pension schemes, supplementary pensions can be paid only to certain retiree categories and, even then, their payment is subject to strict terms and conditions. In essence, a supplementary pension in a pre-existing scheme is an additional amount of pension that may be paid to a person whose occupational pension is integrated or co-ordinated with the contributory State pension. It can be paid only where the occupational pension, combined with any relevant social welfare benefit to which the person is entitled, is less than the pension the person would receive if the occupational pension were calculated on a non-co-ordinated basis.
If a public service pensioner who would otherwise qualify for a supplementary pension has taken up employment, no supplementary pension is paid. Many public service pensioners with mandated early retirement, such as former members of the Garda and military personnel, go on to take up further employment. I am aware that the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, wants to raise with me the point made by Deputy Lisa Chambers. In my contacts with him, I am sure he will raise the matter with me. My experience is that pension schemes are exceptionally complex and any changes thereto have all kinds of consequences that require consideration. I have noted the Deputy's views on the matter.
I appreciate that this is complex, but there is an anomaly. It is different from other areas of the public service in that officers are mandatorily retired. At the age of 56, it is more difficult to seek other employment. A small number of people are affected but they are at a disadvantage. In 2012, when the single pension scheme was being negotiated, this did not arise. There was an expectation by the military that this particular arrangement would continue as normal. It was not until afterwards that it realised there was an effect. The superannuation arrangements for new Defence Forces officers who have entered after 2013 are unfit for purpose. They fail to provide a sustainable living benefit until the age of retirement is reached. There is a gap of a substantial number of years during which those affected receive less pay than they otherwise might. It will be very difficult to live on what they will be getting. The officers are being forced to pay a higher contribution.
I appreciate that the Minister of State of the Department of Defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, will raise the matter with the Minister. The anomaly needs to be addressed. In light of the considerable retention problem faced by the Defence Forces, in respect of which I am sure the Minister of State will brief the Minister further, this matter needs to be addressed. It contributes to members leaving early.
As the Deputy will no doubt be aware, many other parts of our public service have mandatory early retirement. The pension schemes of affected members of the public service reflect that. Although not always, the schemes tend to have a slightly different accrual rate to reflect scheme members' early retirement.
I acknowledge what the Deputy said on this matter. Any changes in areas such as this are very difficult and complex and tend to have costs associated with them. If we make a change in one area, it always has consequences in others. As I have stated, there are personnel in other areas of our public service who have an earlier retirement age and, in many cases, a mandatory early retirement age. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. I am sure she will continue to raise it with the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, who I have no doubt will raise it with me.
7. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress on his discussions with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection in relation to the implementation of Labour Court recommendation, LRC 19293, concerning the rights of community employment scheme supervisors in view of commitments made by his predecessor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47265/17]
17. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress on his Department's discussion with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection in relation to the implementation of Labour Court recommendation, LRC 19293, regarding the rights of community employment scheme supervisors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47334/17]
Just before the Halloween recess there was an all-party gathering on a Topical Issue concerning the issue I am raising in relation to community employment scheme supervisors. That was held in advance of what was a planned meeting of the forum that was established in the Department to address the pension issue. That meeting was postponed and I gather it will now happen later in November. I want to understand the reasons for the postponement and I would like to tease out with the Minister the status of the plans to deal with this issue that were put in place by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Howlin.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 17 together.
Following a meeting with SIPTU and IMPACT trade unions in late 2015, the community sector high level forum, which had ceased operation some years earlier, was reconvened by my predecessor, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in order to fully examine certain issues pertaining to the community employment sector, having regard to the consequences for costs and precedent.
An issue which has been under discussion by the forum relates to community employment supervisors and assistant supervisors who have been seeking, through their union representatives, the allocation of Exchequer funding to implement a Labour Court recommendation relating to the provision of a pension scheme. The Labour Court recommendation was issued on 22 July 2008 following a hearing on 11 July 2008 in relation to a claim on behalf of community employment scheme supervisors and assistant supervisors supported by IMPACT and SIPTU. FÁS, the then funder of the community employment schemes, was not a party to the Labour Court hearing on the matter.
At the most recent forum meeting, in April of this year, my Department outlined its intention to conduct a detailed scoping exercise in order to comprehensively examine and assess the full potential implications of the issues under consideration. In considering the particular matter referred to, regard must be had to the costs and precedent of such an arrangement were one to be created. A scoping exercise is currently being progressed by officials in this Department and should be completed by the end of this year. A meeting of the forum has been arranged to discuss the scoping exercise in the coming weeks.
It continues to be the position that State organisations are not the employer of the particular employees concerned and that it is not possible for the State to provide funding for such a scheme. The employees in question are, or were, employees of private companies, notwithstanding the fact that the companies concerned are, or were, reliant on State funding. In considering the matter, regard must be had to costs and the precedent of such an arrangement were one to be created given that the individuals employed in that sector are not employed by the State, even if the services they provide are funded by the State.
First, FÁS was part of the Labour Court hearing. It made submissions to the Labour Court hearing in 2008. The court's recommendation refers to the fact that the court has considered the submissions made to it by the direct parties, that is, the supervisors and by the funding agency, namely, FÁS. It also said that FÁS acknowledged that the provision of pensions was regarded as a legitimate cost in the cases of employees in community training workshop so FÁS was very much part of the hearing and was very much aware of the implications of that hearing. It put €10 million aside.
We understand a pathway was laid out with a view to resolving this issue without knocking on other claims, which is something we are all legitimately concerned about. I understand the previous Minister, Deputy Howlin, had tried to lay out a pathway to do that before he completed his term of office. We are talking about people who have given enormous service to their community. The quality of a CE scheme is dependent on the supervisor. Many of them are now coming to pensionable age with nothing to show for their service. We need to address this issue once and for all.
I have three points to make in response. The information I have, which of course I will check given the point the Deputy made, is that FÁS was not at the Labour Court and had not consented to the matter being taken to the Labour Court for determination. Given that Deputy Calleary has information to the contrary on that point I will take that into account but the information I have is pretty clear in that regard.
The second point I would make is that Deputy Calleary should think about where we were at that point in time. It was 2008 and we had had a number of years of rapid economic growth. The FÁS organisation was a significant beneficiary of much of that economic growth across that period. In the many years in which significant resources were available, leading right up to the crash period, a pathway was not found to resolve that issue. The reason for that is as I outlined earlier in my initial reply to the Deputy, and also the fact that despite what he said regarding it being possible to settle one matter without having knock-on claims elsewhere, he knows how difficult it is to do that. When one makes progress in one area, within seconds of that progress being made there are other groups who legitimately feel that if one can do something for one group, in particular when it comes to industrial relations, that one has got to do the same for another group.
Deputy Calleary has a lot of experience in this area and he will appreciate the challenge this matter poses, in particular when we have so many other organisations, especially in the health service who are in a similar situation in that we have people working within them who are dependent on funding from the State to provide the service but are not employed by the State. For those reasons the scoping process to which I referred has been set up to get an understanding of the number of people we are talking about and the cost involved in dealing with the matter. The process is under way and will be complete by the end of the year.
I do not know why the forum meeting was deferred a few weeks ago but I imagine it had something to do with all the work that was under way in relation to the FEMPI legislation. I will ensure that the commitment on the next meeting is upheld.
I understand the complexities but there is a Labour Court recommendation and one cannot have the Government on the one hand advising companies to listen to the Labour Court, even though it is a voluntary system, while it ignores recommendations concerning itself, in particular now that the Minister with responsibility for employment, is in charge of social protection schemes and, by extension, is also in charge of the Labour Court.
Will the outcome of the scoping process be ready for the end of November or is it the end of the year? Will the officials be in a position to table the scoping document at the forum meeting at the end of November?
My understanding is that the scoping exercise will be completed by the end of the year but I am hopeful that the next forum meeting will be able to discuss where it is and if the conclusion of the scoping process is not available by then at least my officials will be able to give a good update of where the work stands. If the scoping exercise cannot be brought to a conclusion in time for the next forum meeting I am sure a further forum meeting will be organised either later in the year or early next year to give the full update on where that work stands.
8. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he has been consulted or if he has been involved in the rollout of the new communication strategy across government; if the Office of Government Procurement has been involved with the procurement of outside communication services; the amount spent on outside communication services through the Office of Government Procurement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47261/17]
Communications and the communications strategy of the Government is a topic of much interest at the moment. The Minister made an allocation to the Department of the Taoiseach during the budget process which we understand will be used to reform communications within Government. The previous Government made significant investment in film production and that ethos seems to have extended into the Taoiseach's office in recent weeks as there are more videos from within Government on Twitter than there are episodes of "Coronation Street" at the moment. Could the Minister outline whether the Office of Government Procurement was involved in the process, and how much is being spent by each Department currently on communications and public relations?
Following due consideration and discussion, the Cabinet decided that a strategic communications unit, SCU, should be established in the Department of the Taoiseach, based on international best practice, and with the citizen at the centre of its work. I attended one meeting with the SCU, which took place on 19 October. The director of the unit briefed me, the Secretary General and senior officials from my Department on the work of the unit.
The director outlined the role it will play in improving effectiveness, efficiency and cross-government co-operation to foster and develop a whole-of-government approach to communications.
The Office of Government Procurement is currently running six procurement processes on behalf of the Department of An Taoiseach in respect of the strategic communications unit. The first is a request for tenders for the provision of research and insight. This was published on the eTenders website on 19 September 2017. The second is a request for tenders for the provision of brand identity and design services. This is being run as a mini-competition under the Office of Government Procurement framework agreement for creative and digital campaign services. The invitation to tender issued at the end of September 2017. The third is a request for tenders for the provision of digital media creative services. This is being run as a mini-competition and went to tender on 26 September. The fourth is a request for tenders for the provision of integrated creative and digital campaign services and also went to tender on 26 September. The fifth is a request for tenders for the provision of media strategy planning and buying services. This went out to tender on 4 October. Finally, a request for tenders for the provision of marketing pitch specialist services, which is a mini-competition, went out to tender on 22 September 2017. All these procurement processes are currently at evaluation stage and no contracts have yet been awarded. Expenditure relating to each of these contracts is a matter for the Department of An Taoiseach.
God be with the days when the leader of the country could look into his heart and know what the people were thinking. The Minister has referred to research and insight, branded entities, digital media creative services, digital campaigning services, media strategies and marketing pitches.
I realise the Minister cannot give me the breakdown of all of this for procurement reasons, but what is the combined amount of money that will be allocated? What is the total amount of money being spent on communications and public relations throughout all Departments?
The Minister has held talks with the new head of the strategic communications unit. The new head is an exceptionally gifted individual who has done an extraordinary service to the State in his work during the 1916 commemorations. Did the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform set him targets for money he might save for the Government in terms of the overall communications bill?
I do not have the answer for the Deputy in respect of the total value the State spends on advertising and communications throughout the State. That was not contained in the Deputy's original question. However, I will get the answer for him. I believe that when I provide the answer, the need for efficiency and streamlining in respect of how we do this work will become apparent.
A wide number of State bodies go out and procure advertising and communications. I am certain that it is possible to secure greater efficiencies than we do at the moment. That is the reason I support the work under way in respect of media strategy planning and buying services as well as the work under way in respect of development, provision of brand identity and design services. Too often, I have seen Ministers from this and other Governments stand up to represent our country with a plethora of organisations behind them, all of which are branded and spending taxpayers' money separately but all trying to do the same thing.
When I met the head of the strategic communications unit and discussed the matter with him, I made clear to him that one vital area on which we can make progress is how we deliver further efficiency for the State in how we procure advertising and do communications. This is not on behalf of this Government but on behalf of the State. Money can be saved.
Media planning and buying is now a career option in organisations outside Government. Certain people do only this work. It is a whole area of efficiency into which we have to tap to save money. This is vital for how we procure communications to give citizens information to which they are entitled.
Presumably in the establishment of the strategic communications unit, like the establishment of any new Government unit or service, a business case was made. It would have pointed out that the unit could bring its skills to bear in terms of bringing these efficiencies on Government communications. Presumably in the business case savings were projected or figures were presented to the Minister or the Department for sanction of the appointment of all the various people who are part of the unit. Presumably it showed how much it would save or could potentially save. Was a business case presented for the establishment of the strategic communications unit either to the Minister or to officials within the Department by the Department of the Taoiseach? What proposal was presented to sanction the establishment of the strategic communications unit? Did it come from within the Department of the Taoiseach or from another Department?
A decision was brought to Government in respect of the matter, and it was one I supported. The recommendation came from the Department of the Taoiseach. I do not believe any other Government body or agency was involved. As part of that there was focus on how much money we are spending on advertising and on the procurement of communication and the opportunity to centralise and do that work in a better way. As I have said to the Deputy, I will come back to him with details on the value of all communication at the moment and the types of efficiencies and opportunities that exist to spend the money better. The figures are available; it is simply that the details were not asked of me today.
9. Deputy James Browne asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to set out the number of complaints received by the Commission for Public Service Appointments with regard to public sector recruitment practices in 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47148/17]
Will the Minister set out the number of complaints received by the Commission for Public Service Appointments with regard to public sector recruitment practices in 2017? Will the Minister make a comment on the matter, please?
As the Deputy will be aware, the Commission for Public Service Appointments is an independent statutory body. It is responsible for overseeing appointments to a wide range of positions in the civil and public service. In carrying out its oversight role the commission audits recruitment processes and examines complaints from individuals unhappy with the conduct of an appointment process. The CPSA may make recommendations, offer advice or give instructions to recruiting bodies within its remit. However, it does not have the statutory authority to reverse a recruitment decision taken by one of these recruiting bodies.
As the commission is an independent statutory body, my Department has no involvement in the examination of complaints made to the CPSA.
There are two distinct review procedures provided for under section 7 and section 8 of the codes of practice. A review under section 7 applies in cases where a candidate is unhappy with a decision relating to his or her candidature and wishes to have that decision reviewed. The review of a recruitment decision is conducted solely by the licence holder. The commission cannot overturn this decision and has no role in the process. A review under section 8 applies in cases where a person believes an appointment process has breached the codes and wishes to have it investigated. The complainant must make the complaint to the licence holder in the first instance. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the licence holder's review, he or she may request the commission to investigate the alleged breach.
In this area in the year to date, 83 requests were received under section 8. Of these, a total of 18 requests were deemed invalid, 19 requests were deemed premature and 46 requests were accepted as valid complaints. To date, a total of 35 complaints have been examined with a formal decision issued by the commission. Of these, a total of five were upheld, seven were partially upheld and 23 were not upheld. Where a complaint was upheld or partially upheld, recommendations were made to the licence holder to address the shortcomings identified.
I am raising the issue because of an issue that arises in respect of the recruitment of psychologists within the HSE. The CPSA has received multiple complaints relating to this issue from 2012 to date. In 2013, the CPSA established the codes of practice and recommended a review of recruitment criteria that the HSE duly concluded in 2016. This review failed to resolve the issue and the HSE continues to refuse some qualified psychologists eligibility for posts for which they would be eligible in the UK. No rational justification was put forward for this.
Recruitment campaigns conducted in 2016 and 2017 led to nine complaints from the CPSA from qualified psychologists who were refused interviews because the HSE characterised their experience as not relating to appropriate health settings, but did not define what this meant. The term seems to have applied on an ad hoc basis within the HSE.
Numerous existing employees have been refused access to promotion or transfer and, in effect, have been deemed ineligible for the jobs they are carrying out daily.
It sounds as if the roles and process to which the Deputy refers relate to section 7 rather than section 8 procedures. As I explained, under section 7 procedures, the commission cannot overturn the decision of the licence holder and does not play a role in the decision.
Has the Deputy raised the matter with the Minister for Health? Perhaps he has already done so. If the matter falls within the ambit of section 7, the responsibility for responding to the Deputy's query lies with the HSE. I am particularly struck by his comment to the effect that no rationale was offered for the decisions that were made. State bodies should offer a rationale for all decisions they take on the recruitment, retention and development of staff. It may be a better course of action to raise this matter with the Minister for Health if the Deputy has not already done so.
While I will raise the matter separately with the Minister for Health, it also falls within the scope of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Some job applicants received letters on which alterations had obviously been made post-date using Tipp-Ex. These alterations related to decisions originally made by HSE psychologists and involved applicants' results being changed from eligible to ineligible for the role. We do not know who made these changes, why they were made or who authorised them. An internal report released in October 2017 confirmed that the HSE was operating without an adequate definition of "appropriate health setting" for psychologists. This continues to be the case. The absence of such a definition has consequences because individuals who are working as counselling psychologists in appropriate clinical settings are being told that their experience and current employment are not relevant. We do not know who set this criterion. It was not the Psychological Society of Ireland because that body is asking why qualified psychologists are being refused employment.
This is not a matter for my Department. As I indicated, the CPSA is an independent body. From the Deputy's description, this appears to be a section 7 matter in respect of which the CPSA may not have a role. It is very much a matter for the Department of Health and HSE, which will respond to the Deputy's query. The Deputy's question did not refer to the specific issue he raises, which is in an area in which I do not play a role.
With respect, the Minister plays a role in that his Department has oversight of the CPSA and its investigative function.
If the Deputy had referred specifically to the recruitment of psychologists in the text of his question, rather than raising a general issue in respect of the role of the CPSA, I may have been able to provide a clear answer on the role of the HSE and Department of Health in this matter. Given the way in which the psychologists in question are appointed, it is highly likely that the CPSA does not have a role in the matter. I am sure the Minister for Health will provide a clear answer.
10. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to address pay equalisation across the public sector; if his Department will take a leading role in determining the way in which pay equalisation will be rolled out across Departments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47264/17]
In the context of forthcoming legislation to unwind the financial emergency measures in the public interest, pay equalisation is to be dealt with by the Public Service Pay Commission. Will the Minister provide a timeline for addressing this issue? When does he expect to be in a position to receive a report or recommendations from the commission?
The issue of addressing the difference in incremental salary scales between those public servants who entered public service employment since 2011 and those who entered before that date was addressed with the relevant trade union interests under the provisions of the Haddington Road agreement. My Department and the Department of Education and Skills reached an agreement with the INTO and TUI on many, albeit not all, of the issues related to pay equalisation and we made progress in resolving some of them.
As part of the public service stability agreement, a commitment was made to commence a process of examining pay equalisation within 12 months of the agreement being reached. While the agreement has only recently been ratified and I have not yet introduced legislation to give effect to it, I am pleased to note that the first meeting under this process took place on 12 October. As a result of that meeting, a process has been agreed whereby the issue will be analysed and data generated. The process will be managed by the oversight body for the public service stability agreement, on which officials of my Department and representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions sit. The process will be managed by both parties to the agreement and I am sure efforts will be made to progress work quickly next year.
To return to a point I made in my exchange with Deputy Lisa Chambers earlier, the Department of Education and Skills has estimated that the cost of implementing pay equalisation in education would be €70 million in 2018. If pay equalisation were extended to the Department of Health, the cost would increase to €156 million. If it were extended to all staff hired on new entrant scales, it would increase to €209 million. To reiterate a point I made to Deputy Lisa Chambers, it is very difficult to make a move in one area that does not have consequences elsewhere. To put the figure of €209 million in context, it amounts to a significant proportion of the full cost of the entire pay agreement in the early years after its implementation.
I thank the Minister for the update. Is there a deadline for the work to conclude or will it proceed through next year? Will it be completed in advance of next year's budget? Is the projected cost of €209 million to address pay equalisation an annual or once-off cost?
It is an annual cost. In terms of the timeline for completing the process, I expect it to conclude - one way or another - in advance of next year's budget. We will engage in the process in good faith. From my dealings with the INTO, which has raised the matter with me, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I am aware of the difficulty the pay equalisation issue causes. It would be very difficult to address it in isolation, however. The costs of implementing pay equalisation in the Department of Education and Skills alone are significant. An additional €70 million is roughly comparable to twice the yield from the training levy for next year. This levy will generate a significant amount of the additional resources the Department of Education and Skills will receive next year. These will be invested in third and fourth level education. All of this is taking place in the context of the improvements we have tried to make in recent years to starting salaries of public and civil servants.
While I recognise the complexity of this issue, when an organisation such as the INTO, which normally takes a very constructive approach to participating in many issues in the past ten years, takes the decision it did on the public service pay agreement, it highlights the importance of starting the process and addressing the pay equalisation issue once and for all. We all recognise the complexity of the issue and I welcome that the process has started. Will the process include a public consultation on pay equalisation or will the issue be addressed exclusively within the confines of the public service pay agreement?
I do not envisage a broader consultation on this. It is part of the agreement that I made with representatives of the union movement on the Public Service Stability Agreement. In fairness, given that I have made that commitment, I will adhere to the process.
The process, as I understand it, does not include a role for public consultation. No doubt the union movement, in dealing with this issue with us, will consult with its own members on the issue. I am sure that is already under way.
I am well aware of the importance of the INTO and the contribution it and other unions have made at times of great difficulty to our country. It is in recognition of that that, for example, I reached an agreement with the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the INTO and the TUI approximately a year ago to make big progress on that matter for a number of teachers. As I have said, due to the importance of the matter we have initiated this process. Even though the agreement only requested us to do it within the first year of the agreement and we are only a few weeks into it, we already have that work under way.
I seek clarification on the implications for the health service. Often organisations, such as COPE and the hospice movement, who would be providing services to people would not be funded directly. I refer to the difference between the section 38 and section 39 organisations. Where do such organisations stand in relation to any changes coming down the line? They would have seen the cuts through the FEMPI and many of them have not felt any benefit from its unwinding. I ask to see whether the Minister is taking a leadership role in also providing for them in an unwinding of it.
This is exactly the point I was making earlier on at different points in these questions. It is that if one makes one move in one area, it always has consequences in other areas. The Taoiseach dealt with this matter in Leaders' Questions during the week and both myself and the Minister, Deputy Harris, are engaged in this matter at present.
I understand that the organisations that are the subject of Deputy Aindrias Moynihan's question have received significant additional funding of up to €120 million over the past number of years. As I have said, the Taoiseach has asked that myself and the Minister, Deputy Harris, examine the matter and that is what we are in the course of doing.
11. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the details of the media campaign designed to promote the public services card; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46856/17]
There has been quite considerable controversy around the public services card. The Data Protection Commissioner is investigating issues around it under section 10 of the Data Protection Act. Can the Minister outline how much money is being used to promote the use of the public services card and whether the expenditure of that money is being suspended pending the outcome of the data protection review?
As the Deputy will be aware the card is a means of assisting the delivery of public services to people who need them.
The Department is currently engaged in a procurement process for a media campaign to promote the awareness and benefits of the scheme.
The campaign is likely to be delivered by radio, digital and print channels and is expected to begin in the coming months. The primary objectives of the campaign are: to improve understanding of the card; to highlight services that will be available; and to let people know where they can find out more detailed information about the card and MyGovID.
To date, 2.89 million of these cards have been issued. A number of cards have been re-issued or have expired. The cards are in broad use.
Despite the comment and debate on the issue at the end of the summer and into this term, these are cards one of the purposes of which is to assist us where individuals have to keep supplying the same information repeatedly to the State to access different services. For example, the legislation on data sharing and governance, that the Minister, Deputy O'Driscoll, referred to earlier on, will provide another building block in how we can further provide services more effectively and conveniently to citizens. We are making progress in so doing but it is a source of frustration for citizens that we cannot do even more, and that is what this card is about.
There is a new Minister in the UK. I did not realise we had one here today as well. The Minister had rugby on his mind.
The Minister is getting a bit tired.
Deputy Calleary is embarrassing me now.
In the context of the concerns raised, particularly with an investigation under way by the Data Protection Commissioner, will the procurement for a service for promoting the card proceed or will the campaign be delayed until that report is filed, and is there any update on that report?
My voice is not as fresh as I thought. Apologies to the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, for what I have just done.
We will have to leave Deputy Calleary out of the finance committee.
On the questions Deputy Calleary put to me, the procurement process is not being delayed. It is under way. Because we have not got to the point at which the campaign has even begun - we are not at a point yet, indeed, in which the campaign can even be paused - my understanding is that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection has engaged with the Data Protection Commissioner on many of the issues that she raised, as she is entitled to do, around the period in which this card was the subject of much debate.
I was involved in introducing the card. As long as it is a convenience, I have nothing against the card. Some comment has been a little bit over the top.
There are two comments I would make. One is on the design of the card. I have to say the writing on it, for example, the PPS number, is very small for older people. It is much better on the medical card where it is much bigger. It is a small, but important, point because this is used commonly by older people accessing services.
The second issue is more germane. Zealot approaches cause chaos. What I mean by a "zealot approach" is this. I had a case of somebody who wanted to get a driver's licence. He could not get the driver's licence because he did not have a card and could not get the card because he did not have a driver's licence and did not have a passport. Social welfare took a practical view and issued the card on reasonable evidence of an out-of-date licence. The point that seems to have arisen is that it is being demanded as an absolute, only way of identifying oneself whereas, in my view, and I ask the Minister to consider this, in most cases one would have to produce suitable evidence of one's identity which would include a passport, a card or other suitable identification because the people who likely do not have it are older people who are well settled in the community and who are easily identified. If, however, the Department states one must have the card the most likely person to get trapped is somebody who is known to everybody but the rule states the person has to have the card and he or she gets caught, literally, in a vicious circle. Could the Minister deal with that issue?
In relation to the Deputy's first point, I myself have the card and I am glad to hear Deputy Ó Cuív appreciates and acknowledges the role that it can play.
I will take on board the point the Deputy made about the writing on it and I will pass it on to my colleagues who are working on it. As the Deputy will be aware, the people who are making the greatest use of it at present tend to be our older citizens. They are accessing it either for free travel or to access payments to which they are entitled. I am not aware of the issue having been raised to date but it is a fair point.
On the zealot approach that Deputy Ó Cuív talked about, we have a challenge here. We want to get to a point where this card is used by citizens to access services because I believe the issue of ensuring that we are providing valuable services to those who are meant to get them will become more important in the future.
I have my own experience in this area. We expect public services and staff involved in dealing with this issue on the front line to try to accommodate people and, indeed, they do so.
If people have particular issues, we ask them to ensure that they are dealt with sensitively and respectfully. It seems that the Deputy had such an experience in terms of the particular matter with which he dealt.
12. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to review and address recruitment and retention issues in various areas of the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47262/17]
The issue of recruitment and retention within the public service is causing considerable pressure, particularly in the health service but also in the area of education. An issue has arisen, for example, in the context of the availability of substitute teachers. I have also seen figures which indicate that 60 hospital beds were closed last month because of a shortage of staff. I understand that there are procedures within the Public Service Pay Commission to address this and, as with the question on pay equalisation earlier, I want to know if those procedures have been initiated.
The Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 provides for a more comprehensive examination by the Public Service Pay Commission of underlying difficulties in recruitment and retention in sectors and employment streams of the public service where difficulties are evident.
The Government recently approved the terms of reference for the second phase of work of the commission. Where a difficulty is identified, the commission will examine the full range of causal factors, including matters such as the totality of the current remuneration package, planned future pay adjustments, alleviations from current rates of pension related deductions as provided for in the public service stability agreement and FEMPI unwinding post-2020.
The commission will also look at supply constraints of newly qualified graduates of relevant post-leaving certificate and third-level programmes. It will develop appropriate analytical criteria to ensure a robust evidence-based approach to this exercise. It will look at areas where a global labour market exists as well as the responses being adopted in other jurisdictions where similar recruitment and retention problems obtain.
I met the commission to discuss this matter two weeks ago. I met Mr. Kevin Duffy and the full commission and we had a discussion on this issue and on the terms of reference being set by the Government. Where we have retention and recruitment issues, we want to determine the reasons for that and we discussed the importance of evidence in terms of allowing us to understand it. One of the areas on which we made progress relates to the last piece of work carried out by the commission. The commission published work that was transparent and evidence-based, particularly regarding public pensions. I would be eager that such an approach would be continued in respect of this sensitive area. I understand that, in the first instance, the commission intends to focus on those groups in the health sector that were identified in its first report. It will produce a preliminary report on these issues during 2018 and I anticipate receipt of the final report by the end of 2018, as was envisaged in the agreement.
I suggest that another issue be added to the criteria would be the amount of money being spent, particularly within the health service, on agencies to fill the gaps. I point to the example of Erris in County Mayo, an area that is physically the same size as County Louth, where there is currently no public physiotherapy service. Can the Minister imagine County Louth without such a service? There is a difficulty in recruiting physiotherapists and the posts are currently being filled by agency staff. That also applies to occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and general nursing. I heard reports of a freedom of information request on the money being spent to recruit nurses from abroad. Representatives of our hospital groups are travelling abroad to recruit nurses while we are exporting nurses out of the country.
As another assist in terms of looking at the cost of this, can we look at the amount of money that is being spent on agencies, particularly within the health service? That money might be better invested in putting more comprehensive pay packages in place. However, it is not just a question of pay. It is also a question of HR policies within the public service that have not been adapted or updated to reflect modern ways of working and of career development.
I entirely agree with Deputy Calleary on the final point he made. As he said, pay will play a role but there are many other matters at stake here, particularly the issue of career planning. When people enter any kind of job, but particularly a front-line service job, they have a reasonable expectation that they will know how their career is going to be planned for the foreseeable future. This is an issue that I discussed with the commission and it will be an important factor in understanding where we have difficulties. It is my view that we do not have a generalised recruitment difficulty but we may well have specific retention challenges in particular areas in our country and in particular specialties.
On the Deputy's first point about agency staff, I will ask the commission to include that in its work.
13. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to allow the Department of Rural and Community Development to prepay local authorities at the end of 2017 for work to be carried out after payment is received by them; if the Comptroller and Auditor General has been consulted regarding this practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47141/17]
Last year the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform gave permission to the then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to prepay money to local authorities, which is an unusual practice. To date, only 60% of that money has been spent and the rest is lying in local authority coffers, which is another very unusual practice. Is that likely to be repeated again at the end of this year?
The disbursement of funds from the Vote of the Department of Rural and Community Development is a matter for the Accounting Officer of that Department in the first instance. My Department's circular No. 13/2014 clarifies arrangements for the management and accountability for grants from Exchequer funds. In particular, section 6 provides that the default position is that grants should be paid on the basis of vouched expenditure. However, where pre-funding is required, prior approval must be sought from my Department. In cases where pre-funding is required on an ongoing basis, these arrangements should be referred to in the annual delegated sanction letter from my Department.
It is a matter for the Accounting Officer for the relevant Vote to ensure that any funding arrangements made fully comply with public financial procedures. The rationale for pre-funding should be documented by the grantor and available for audit and inspection, together with the monitoring and control arrangements attaching to the pre-funding. It is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to decide what issues to examine in the course of his office's regular audits of departmental spending.
I am informed that to date my Department has not received any specific requests for sanction from the Department of Rural and Community Development in respect of pre-payments to local authorities.
I presume the reference in the circular to pre-funding relates to situations where the person who is going to engage in the expenditure would not have the where with all to carry out the work without pre-funding, which I understand. Would the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform consider the fact that a Minister was not able to spend the money made available to a Department an adequate reason for pre-funding? It is obvious that local authorities handle much larger sums of money than the €28 million that was disbursed to 30 local authorities, amounting to less than €1 million each, and that following the normal pattern of vouched expenditure would not be a problem for them. In that context, would the fact that the Minister could not spend the Department's money in time be a sufficient reason for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to give sanction for the pre-funding of local authorities so that the Government would not have the embarrassment of a Minister who was not able to spend the money allocated? That is basically what happened last year.
I can assure Deputy Ó Cuív that there are few Ministers more capable of spending money well than the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Ring.
Deputy Dara Calleary knows that only too well.
When he is dealing with this matter this year, I am very confident that he will be ensuring that money made available will be spent. Deputy Ó Cuív can be certain that if the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Ring approaches my Department looking for a decision regarding pre-funding - he has not done so as yet - it will be for money that he is confident of spending. I am certain that if money is made available to his Department, it will be spent.
The Minister for Rural and Community Development was Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs last year and had responsibility for the same functions. The money was not spent last year and he had to pre-fund local authorities to the tune of €28 million.
As I said in the preamble to the question, only 60% of that has been spent to date and the 40% of last year's money which has not been spent amounts to €11 million. On top of that, it is likely that out of this year's allocation, despite the smart-alec remarks, he will underspend by over €30 million on the capital side of his Department. I am asking if his inability to spend the money is sufficient reason for the Minister for Finance, rather than saying he can carry forward 10%, to give a pre-funding arrangement to local authorities which we know they have already abused this year and will likely abuse again next year.
There was no smart-aleckry in the comment I made. As somebody who has worked with the Minister, Deputy Ring, over many years and had the experience of working with him in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, I know his ability and focus to ensure that plans from Government happen on the ground is unparalleled. If there is an issue in regard to the expenditure of money by local authorities I am confident the Minister, Deputy Ring, will fix it. As I said, to date he has not approached me looking for pre-funding for any programme. I know, given the engagement I have had with the Minister in recent weeks in the run-up to the budget, he is determined as a member of Cabinet to ensure that if funding is made available in the Department of Rural and Community Development, that money will be spent through local authorities and elsewhere. It is always the case, as the Deputy will know, that when we are dealing with local authorities, commitments and funding that are made available to them are, on occasion, not spent during the year. There are other Departments which have ample experience of this but, as I have said, I am confident the Minister, Deputy Ring, in his role in leading this new Department, will tackle and make progress on this matter.
