Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 2003

Vol. 1 No. 16

Message to Dáil.

In accordance with Standing Order 85, the following message will be sent to the Dáil:

The Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service has completed its consideration of the following Revised Estimates for Public Services 2003:

Vote 1 - President's Establishment, Vote 2 - Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament, Vote 5 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Vote 6 - Office of the Minister for Finance, Vote 7 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances, Vote 8 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners, Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Vote 11 - State Laboratory, Vote 12 - Secret Service, Vote 15 - Valuation Office, Vote 16 - Civil service Commission, Vote 17 - Office of the Ombudsman.

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and his officials for attending the meeting.

We will now suspend and will continue our discussion of the Estimates of the Department of the Taoiseach with the Taoiseach and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Hanafin, at 1.30 p.m., and with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, for the Office of Public Works at 3 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m and resumed at 1.30 p.m.

Vote 3 - Department of the Taoiseach.

Vote 4 - Central Statistics Office.

Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General.

Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

We will move to Part Two, the Taoiseach's group of Estimates. On behalf of the committee I welcome the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and their officials here this afternoon. We will continue our meeting to consider the Revised Estimates falling within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach, namely, Vote 3 - Department of the Taoiseach Revised Estimate, Vote 4 - Central Statistics Office Revised Estimate, Vote 13 - Office of the Attorney General Revised Estimate, Vote 14 - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Revised Estimate and Vote 18 - Office of the Chief State Solicitor Revised Estimate. I refer to the timetable circulated earlier which allows for opening statements by the Taoiseach of a maximum of 15 minutes. The Minister of State may also wish to make a contribution of about five minutes and the Opposition spokespersons have a maximum of ten minutes each. We can then have an open discussion on all five Votes by way of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I now invite the Taoiseach to make an opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and the committee for receiving the Estimates for the Department of the Taoiseach and associated offices for 2003. In presenting these Estimates today, I am aware that the overall provision for my Department for 2003 represents a substantial reduction on its 2002 level. Nevertheless, I welcome the provision of a level of funding which, I am satisfied, will allow my Department to continue with the range of activities it undertakes, reflecting the central role it plays in advancing the priorities of Government. I strongly believe these activities and services can continue to be provided, even with a tighter budget, through the achievement of greater efficiencies and better value for money in the administration of the Department and the services that it provides. This is something my Department is working very hard to achieve.

I will outline the key objectives and projects, which will be progressed in the current year. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their consistent support for the peace process and our efforts to secure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I share the general sense of regret and disappointment that we have not succeeded yet in achieving the progress required to underpin the Agreement and secure the stability of the devolved Institutions in Northern Ireland. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and I have had the opportunity recently to address the Dáil on developments generally and I do not propose to go over the same ground again. When we met at Farmleigh on 6 May, the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and I agreed that, other than those aspects explicitly linked to acts of completion by others, both Governments should implement the commitments in the joint declaration. The recent meeting of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference was largely devoted to the implementation of the Joint Declaration and that work will be advanced as quickly as possible.

As I did in the House this morning, I congratulate Mr. David Trimble on his achievement on winning the vote at the Ulster Unionist Council meeting on Monday night and I look forward to continuing to work with him and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and all of the pro-Agreement parties, to ensure that the commitments and undertakings in the Agreement are fully implemented. We are facing into a difficult period. The marching season is commencing and it will be important for everyone and for all communities in Northern Ireland that we have peace on the streets and at the interface areas in particular. The postponement of elections drained the political process of a good deal of energy but it is important for us all to focus again and regain political momentum so that we can have a positive context for an election, which I hope will take place in the autumn.

A number of provisions in the Department's Vote continue to play an important supporting role in the context of Northern Ireland. In November 2002, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which had not met since December 1997, was reconvened in response to a number of requests from political parties, both south and north. It was felt that, in the circumstances prevailing last autumn following suspension of the Northern Ireland institutions, the Forum could play a useful role, complementary to talks involving the two Governments and the pro-Agreement parties. Four meetings of the Forum, including three in public session, have taken place and have played a positive and constructive role in helping to build confidence and trust, both among the parties participating in the Forum and among the wider public in both parts of this island.

On commemorations and reconciliation initiatives the Estimate for subhead E is €63,000. This was used mainly for the Robert Emmet Association's bicentennial anniversary programme and several smaller initiatives. The provision of €416,000 in subhead L will enable the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings to complete its work and I dealt with that extensively during Question Time yesterday.

The European and international affairs division of my Department supports me in my role as a member of the European Council and as Head of Government, dealing with Ireland's role in European and international affairs. The division works in close collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and with other Departments to promote our interests in EU and international policy formulation. Co-ordinating a successful input to, and outcome from, Ireland's Presidency of the European Union next year will be the central priority area for the division for the year ahead. The Department is working closely with other Departments to ensure we effectively chair and progress the wide range of issues on the European agenda. Of critical importance will be to secure a successful outcome, from our perspective, to the Intergovernmental Conference, which is likely to conclude during our Presidency. That will finalise the text of the next European treaty, based on the report and draft European constitution which I hope, will be finalised tomorrow in Thessaloniki at the Greek European Council meeting.

Since October 2001, the National Forum on Europe has established itself as an independent space where public representatives and civil society can exchange views on the future of Europe with the Irish representatives at the Convention on the Future of Europe. Its policy of holding regular regional meetings has provided the public with an opportunity to express its views and to raise issues of concern. A very wide range of topics has been covered in terms of the impact of enlargement, our relationship with the European Union and the areas of concern to our national interests, and how we, as one of the smaller member states, wish to see an enlarged Union develop in the future. The work of the Forum continues to promote debate on the work of the Convention, clarifying issues and communicating with the public. The Forum has encouraged full participation by all interested parties and organisations involved in European affairs and has promoted a wider public debate and a clearer understanding of the key issues involved in that debate.

My Department plays a key role in the formulation of national economic and social policy and providing advice to me in my role as Taoiseach and to the Government. The Department chaired the negotiations on the successor agreement to the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which concluded in February 2003. All four social partner pillars have formally ratified the new agreement. My Department will contribute to the effective management, monitoring and overseeing of the implementation of the agreement. The Department is also working to support partnership in the public and private sectors, aimed at modernising the workplace and improving performance and service delivery. The National Economic and Social Council provides advice to the Government on the development of the economy and the achievement of social goals. The council continues to be at the forefront of identifying and analysing strategic policy issues and is committed to high quality research analysis. The strategy document it produced in 2002 provided a significant input into the partnership negotiations leading up to Sustaining Progress. There is provision for €697,000 in the 2003 Estimates to fund the council's activities.

The National Economic and Social Forum has a particular mandate to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes identified in the context of social partnership arrangements, especially those concerned with the achievement of equality and social inclusion. That focus has resulted in a number of publications that contribute - and, moreover, add value - to our approach in addressing those areas. The mandate of the forum has been recently been extended to facilitate public consultation. NESF, with its four strands of Oireachtas; employer, trade unions and farm organisations; the community and voluntary sectors; and central, local government and independents, is uniquely placed to harness the views of a wide range of interests. A sum of €669,000 is provided for it in the Estimates for 2003.

The National Centre for Partnership and Performance will continue to focus on supporting change and improved performance, through partnership, in the workplace. One of the key issues facing us is how to modernise our workplaces to achieve high performance. The Government, employers and unions believe that co-operative working relationships are the key to managing change, achieving higher performance and a better workplace. In developing a vision of the high-performing workplace, the NCPP is preparing for the establishment of a forum on the workplace of the future. That forum will foster in-depth discussion on how workplaces can best adapt to competitive pressures, improve the delivery of services and respond to changing needs and preferences of employees. Provision of €860,000 has been made for the centre in the 2003 Estimates.

The National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, comprises the NESC, the NESF, and the NCPP. The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, will put those three bodies on a statutory basis as part of the new office. The primary role of NESDO is to add value to the work of its constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which synergies can be released, joint projects pursued and the potential for duplication minimised. The office promotes the development of a shared vision for realising those goals and will encourage the constituent bodies to maximise their impact through co-operation and co-ordinated effort. Through that process of co-operation, knowledge and ideas can be shared and complementary and joint programmes of research and analysis can be pursued. NESDO moved into new offices in December 2002, thus facilitating sharing of administrative and overhead expenses and thereby reducing costs. An amount of €641,000 has been provided in subhead M of this Department's Vote for the office in 2003.

I am also pleased to report continued good progress with implementation of the modernisation programme for the public service. In 2002, PA Consulting's evaluation of the strategic management initiative concluded that the Civil Service is better managed and more effective than it was a decade ago. In response to that report, the implementation group of Secretaries General is currently overseeing the drafting of a new vision statement, strategy and action plan for the Civil Service, which I expect to be published towards the end of this year.

Other initiatives to drive the process forward include the launch of customer charters as the next phase of the quality customer service initiative, a new communications strategy to inform civil servants better about the modernisation programme, the drafting of a national policy statement on better regulation, and progress on the development of a model of regulatory impact analysis which, it is hoped, will begin in pilot form in several Departments later this year. The inclusion in Sustaining Progress of a substantial range of initiatives to ensure the continued modernisation of the public service is an important development in driving forward the modernisation agenda.

The other relatively large allocation in the Estimates is €3.664 million to fund the ongoing work of the Moriarty tribunal. There is also a contingency provision of €251,000 for any outstanding legal costs that might fall due in respect of the McCracken tribunal. An allocation of €338,000 has been made for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. The committee recently published its eighth report on government. It will continue its valuable work by focusing on the articles dealing with fundamental rights, including a study on the constitutional rights of people with disabilities.

The 2003 Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General is €13.949 million. That provides for the operating costs of the office. Subhead A5 includes funding for implementation of a new IT plan, which is currently under way in conjunction with the Chief State Solicitor's office and involves a number of major projects which will greatly increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of those offices. A sum of €1.577 million is provided by way of grant in aid for the Law Reform Commission, whose second programme for law reform was launched in December 2001.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is €29.393 million. The DPP's Vote provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts, and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings. Vote 18 provides for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The Estimate for the year ending 31 December 2003 is €30.396 million. In addition to providing for the ongoing operations of the office, that provision includes funding for a number of major IT projects regarding implementation of the joint IT strategy, over a three-year investment plan, with the Office of the Attorney General. Provision is also made in subhead B for fees for counsel engaged in litigation on behalf of the Attorney General and in subhead D for general law expenses, which cover the legal costs awarded as a result of litigation and other administrative expenses arising.

I commend these Estimates to the committee and thank the its members for their attention and making time for us today. I would now like to hand over to Deputy Hanafin, who will make a statement on the Estimates for the information society and Central Statistics Office, for which she has ministerial responsibility.

I thank the committee for this opportunity. My two areas of responsibility are the information society and the Central Statistics Office.

The work of the Information Society Commission, for which a provision of €664,000 is made in subhead G, will continue its mandate to highlight the challenges, opportunities and issues presented by IS developments, to provide expert advice, identify areas for potential international co-operation and monitor Ireland's performance in its evolution as an information society. The Department of the Taoiseach continues to spearhead the development of the information society and e-government in Ireland.

During 2002 the information society action plan entitled New Connections was launched. This charts our vision and objectives for the information society in Ireland across several strands over the coming years. Progress continues to be made on initiatives across the range of strands identified in the report. These include: implementing the State's broadband strategy, putting in place an appropriate legislative and regulatory environment, building towards developing a knowledge economy, focusing on the significance of research and development, fostering a learning environment and delivering new learning opportunities through the use of ICT. That all comes in the context of an inclusive approach to the implementation of all strands of the information society agenda.

In 2003, the information society policy unit of the Department of the Taoiseach continues to promote the e-government objective. That mandate includes: developing the potential of IT to transform how the public sector works, promotion of the development of on-line services by 2005 across a range of public services, further development of electronic public procurement, co-ordination of the implementation of the e-Europe 2005 action plan, and the deployment of the e-Cabinet systems by the Department of the Taoiseach during the summer and autumn of 2003. The last-named initiative will support the Cabinet process and provide considerable benefits to Ministers, their Departments and all concerned with the Cabinet process.

We recognise the importance of developing a modern, dynamic information society in Ireland. An e-enabled society, to which everyone has access, will open up vast new business and social opportunities for us. It will also contribute to our development as a knowledge economy. In the year ahead we will seek to build on the considerable progress made to date and to deliver on the actions as set out in our new action plan.

The Estimates for the Department include an allocation in subhead A8 of €1.672 million. That will fund the e-Cabinet project, the staffing of the information society policy unit in the Department, and two research scholarships focused on electronic service delivery in Government.

Vote 4 covers the Central Statistics Office, which is responsible for the collection, processing and dissemination of official statistics on economic and social conditions in Ireland. While the main focus is on the statistical requirements of the Government, there is a very wide community of users nationally, including the social partners, numerous public bodies, business, universities, research institutes and the general public. There is also a significant international dimension to the work of the office, with EU requirements affecting most areas of statistics.

The year 2002 was an exceptional year for the CSO, with a full census of population undertaken. The use of scanning technology to process the forms will fast-track the availability of results, with an overall time frame some eight months shorter than was achieved in the 1996 census. The principal demographic results publication will appear tomorrow, June 19, and the full series of census volumes will be published by April next year, starting with the small-area results onJuly 3.

In non-census years, the quarterly national household survey continues to be the most important source of information on demographic and social trends. Figures on the labour force are published within three months of the end of each quarter. The survey also provides information on a very wide range of social topics. Information is being collected this year on housing, lifelong learning, household use of information technology, and crime and victimisation. Recent reports include those on teleworking and on voter participation while a report on child care will be published before the end of this month.

The national employment survey is currently under way. It will provide information on earnings and on the effect of factors such as gender, age, family situation and the level of education. In addition the CSO is making preparations this year to conduct a household budget survey in 2004. This survey is conducted every five years and it underpins the calculation of the consumer price index.

The EU survey on income and living conditions is due to begin at the end of this month. This is an important initiative and the survey will provide annual statistics to inform a range of social policies, including the National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Nine other Departments have each contributed €100,000 to the CSO's Vote in 2003 to help start this survey, demonstrating the widespread importance of statistical information for policy-making across Government.

In April 2003, the National Statistics Board published a report entitled Developing Irish Social and Equality Statistics to meet policy needs. The report recommended the development of a national framework for social and equality statistics, with an emphasis on the use of administrative data sources to provide a broader range of statistics which can inform policy and assist planning. The CSO has responded positively to the report and is already actively following up the recommendations to develop the statistical potential of administrative records.

The CSO is also continuing to build on its strong IT capability. Secure electronic means of collecting data are being used in more surveys and scanning is being used to process a growing number of paper questionnaires. The CSO is in the final stages of implementing a complex IT strategy, which will take advantage of the latest technologies for processing data and publishing statistics. The strategy will also position the CSO to take advantage of the e-government initiatives, as they come on stream.

I commend these Estimates to the select committee.

I welcome the Taoiseach to the select committee, on whose desk the buck stops. It is good that he comes before the select committee and gives us an opportunity to debate the Estimates. Much of what the Taoiseach has achieved has been positive. However, I hope he will forgive me if I concentrate more on the weaker areas. The problem at present is that we are suffering from the fall-out of the "get out and party" years. During the past two years, the Government increased spending by 40%, six times the rate of growth of its tax base. That has put severe pressure on the system. We now see an economy where competitiveness is under severe pressure, exports collapsed during the first quarter and employment problems are emerging in companies at the sharp end. Many of the problems these companies identify relate to Government responsibility. Sixty per cent of inflation is generated by Government. Traffic, insurance and waste are key areas for which Government has primary responsibility. It behoves us to look hard at how the wealth of this country has been used in recent years.

The OECD was withering in the simplicity of its recommendations as to what needed to be done in regard to public services. It just shows the extent of damage done to financial prudence in the heavy spending years. It suggested that grandiose projects should be properly evaluated. That did not happen with the metro system, Stadium Ireland and many other projects. Outcomes matter as well as inputs. That is not happening in education or in health. Costings should be accurately and properly controlled. That is manifestly not happening. Let us look at the "mad cow" roundabout. It is surely a monument to the poor way in which planning and delivery of projects is undertaken in Ireland. It is said that creating layer upon layer of administration does not deliver quality services - an amazing insight, yet the Government added three new health boards to the existing list and now, belatedly, is talking about removing them. The tragedy is that the reform agenda which should have received attention when there was plenty money to grease the wheels of re-engineering these systems was not used. We will have to try to retrofit reform when the money is spent, beds are closed and we see all the crazy consequences of lazy cutbacks which Departments are administering. It is driven from the top.

This year's budget provided for a 12% increase in pay while non pay was allowed to increase by just 1%. As night follows day, the bureaucracy is preserved but the services that filter out to the ordinary punter get axed. We have seen that happen in the area of respite care, hospital beds and so on. It is no accident that this has happened. We need to look at the failure of the system.

Benchmarking was an unmitigated disaster. I thank the Government for appointing me for a short period to the European benchmarking study which was in place after we left Government. Benchmarking is an exciting process. It is about looking at best practice, helping one's public servants to aspire to and achieve best practice, to make changes in the way they run their system, to look at what is done in Singapore, Finland or Denmark or wherever is best in the field. It is an exciting process of engagement where people are awarded for delivering quality service. The contrast between that exciting process, which the Government knew about, and what happened in Ireland, where it was a static insider deal with none of the information published no engagement with the people who were to drive performance change, was a travesty of what benchmarking should have been about. According to the Minister for Finance, we are left to cope with an extra pay bill of €2 billion and yet no dynamic for reform has been built into the system. It was a massive lost opportunity. It reflects a deeper malaise in the social partnership system for which the Taoiseach is the central driving force. The trouble is it is a top-down system and the flaws are evident. It favours producers over consumers. We have seen that time and again. We saw it last week with the banks and how they were able to protect their margins against the interests of consumers. It is also in all our utilities. For example, in transport, health and education, Ireland stands out as one of the worst countries for monitoring and reporting progress on the quality of service to those who are availing of those services.

A recent study compared us to Northern Ireland and we were in the ha'penny place, and Northern Ireland is not regarded as being a leading edge country. We have not got to grips with giving consumers a greater say. Accountability remains a taboo subject in many areas of the public service, most notably in education but also in terms of consultants and hospitals. The social partnership which should have driven reform in this area has shied away from it and given many of the vested interests additional protection to slow down the pace of reform.

The same is true in the area of devolution. We are an extremely centralised society. We all know that subsidiarity is the important way to proceed, to delegate appropriate power to communities, but that has not happened under the partnership. It has spawned a new layer of local partnership companies which are excellent and do excellent work. Far from becoming a main-streamed activity, they are still marginal and suffer cutback whenever something goes wrong. The Department of Education and Science is a dinosaur still trying to run everything centrally. If one wishes to change a school boiler, one has to seek approval from Marlborough Street. It is ludicrous. It is freezing out of decision making, those who have the capacity to make important decisions about the manner in which community services are run.

The partnership also has far too narrow a focus on the calculus of the workplace. It is all about wages, employment and profits. The sad part is that we have damaged connected lives here by the excessive focus on this narrow base, where other voices that should have been heard - those who speak for the consumer, the environment, for parents and families - have not been hard. It is not surprising then that developers are happy to leapfrog further out to greenfield developments in Carlow or Mullingar for our young Dubliners and impose on them the consequences.

We have not reformed our employment law to bring it to a stage where it is helping people to take a broader view. The employers and the unions are the first division players and all the others are poor second partners. We are paying dearly, even in this House. Parliament should be the place where the conflicts between competing interests are thrashed out openly and transparently and decisions made by elected people, but we have replaced that with an unknown pecking order of lobbying and inside deals that have been spawned which are counter to the strong performing democracy we need. I am not saying I am against partnership. I am very much for it, but the top-down partnership that is built on a cosy consensus of insiders is not enough. We need to radically reform that partnership if it is to continue to contribute, as it has in the past, to making this country a better place to live, rear one's children and enjoy one's old age.

I will deal briefly with some of the Estimates.

Deputy, I am conscious that other spokespersons want to speak.

How much of my time have I used?

About eight minutes.

I have two minutes left.

Yes, but the Taoiseach has to leave at 2.25 p.m. You may want to leave time for questions and answers.

I did not realise the Taoiseach was under a time constraint.

That is why I am indicating it to you at this stage.

Briefly, in relation in some of the Estimate, I have to make the same points I have made for 20 years and which I am sure the Taoiseach made when he was on these benches. Why are we discussing Estimates when half of the money has already been spent? I know the Minister for Finance said he would reform that practice, but it has not happened. Why are we discussing Estimates in respect of which there is no programme information on, say, the census of population cost, the efficiency of it and how it was carried out or the way different initiatives and programmes work? That would allow us to take a grown up view of whether we are getting value for money.

In the early 1980s - the Taoiseach will also remember this - public expenditure programmes were streets ahead of what is now made available. We have massively increased the public service, yet we are getting less useful information.

In talking of expanding public service, the Taoiseach needs to examine his Department. In the period from 1997 until now, staffing in his Department increased by 65%. Personnel in the Government press secretariat has increased by 50%. Are members of the public getting more value out of this extra staffing? Where is the evaluation of performance in the Taoiseach's Department?

I want to raise the issue of tribunals and costs. This morning we hear there are nine tribunal millionaires. There has been a 60% increase in the legal fees that will be paid by the Director of Public Prosecutions this year to legal counsel. What is going on in terms of controlling the cost of investigative and other processes to ensure they will be run cost-effectively? We need to look seriously at that. How sustainable is it to continue running the services where we are preserving the pay element? In the Central Statistics Office, pay will go up and non-pay is down 40%. In the DPPs office, pay will be up 32% with non-pay down 20%. Public services cannot be run indefinitely on the basis of preserving the bureaucracies and starving the services people deliver.

I will not take up any more time because we will have time to go through the Estimates item by item when the Taoiseach has left. I thank the Taoiseach for the opportunity to get off my chest some of the frustration of trying to work in this area.

I thank the Taoiseach for coming before the committee and making his presentation. I want to raise a number of points.

In terms of the future of the economy and the concerns of the Taoiseach, the issue of the North must be paramount and the current stalemate is of concern to everybody. In that context, I hope there may be opportunities for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to convene at least once more this year, if not more often. In terms of the current stalemate, all mechanisms have to be used to try to get parties out of the box into which they are locked. Progressing the peace process is enormously important for the future of the island, North and South, and the future of the economy.

In the reshuffle of his Government, I notice that the Prime Minister Mr. Blair effectively appointed a full ministerial team to the North. I do not know whether that indicates that elections are being long-fingered for a lengthy period. That has to be of concern. I wish the Taoiseach well in his endeavours on the North. The Labour Party will support any movement the Taoiseach makes to try to break the stalemate.

On the specific question of the cost of the Taoiseach's office, it is particularly difficult to identify the figures which relate to the media monitoring unit. Specifically, how much did the recent Government progress report cost? How much Civil Service time did it take to produce it and who got copies of it? I have concerns about the media monitoring unit and the Government press secretariat and information services. I assume the monitoring unit, or whatever it is called now, is included in that. It is interesting that overtime accounts for more than 50% of the costs of the unit. The overtime cost is more than 50% of regular staffing costs. In most management structures that would be regarded as very undesirable and I would like the Taoiseach to comment on that.

On the public service modernisation process, I am aware the Estimates relate to the Civil Service as such but I am concerned that the model of modernisation we have adopted is excessively expensive and bureaucratic. It relies, to an excessive extent, on input from consultants to the point where, at times, it appears as though both Ministers and senior civil servants are paralysed from making any decision unless they have had a consultant evaluate it and then re-evaluate it if there are to be any changes made. That is a particular concern of mine. While the process of using consultants may have been understandable in the context of the rapid changes that took place in the Civil Service, the time has come to evaluate the value of money involved in an excessive use of consultants and an advisory process.

The Taoiseach spoke earlier in the year about referring the question of property rights to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I represent a constituency in Dublin West, with which the Taoiseach is familiar, which has ten new and expanded school projects. That is in the context of the thousands of houses Fingal County Council - on which I have been the leader of the Labour group - permitted to be built. We have done more than our part in terms of getting thousands of new homes built. The key problem, however, is that over a three year period the Department of Education and Science ended up paying more than €3 million for a small primary school site on foot of the rezoning of an area of land for housing. The developer got more than €3 million from the State for a small, three and a half acre site. The committee on the Constitution must be able to react quickly to this gross abuse of public money by developers who not only make money from the sale of houses but make it on the triple by selling to the State agricultural land that has been rezoned by the public authority and getting top A1 residential prices on the land. We need to be able to address that matter as a matter of urgency.

The other day the Dublin city manager spoke of an additional levy of €10,000 per house in the Dublin area. Most of that could be avoided if this Parliament was prepared to grapple with the issue of the cost of land and, in particular, the cost of land for public uses which the developers sell back to various State authorities.

In respect of the presentation by the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, I want to address the question of broadband and reiterate that in the opinion of most people, we have now fallen dramatically behind. We were to the fore, but over the past three to four years most industrialists will say that the failure to have modern broadband communications, particularly outside the Dublin region, means that those areas cannot compete with much of eastern Europe. Similar to the leap this country took with telephone technology 20 years ago, eastern Europe and China are jumping ahead. The cost to people coming to Ireland to use the Internet, etc., is excessively expensive, as is the cost to families, where children may expect to easily log on and off. All these costs are excessive and are part of the competitiveness crisis in the country. The initiative overseen by the Minister of State is very disappointing in terms of its outcome, particularly for the western seaboard and rural areas.

With regard to the learning environment, the underresourcing of science and mathematical facilities in many second level schools means that our capacity to deliver an educated workforce and educated students is severely restricted. The initiative must go further than the top level areas, which are currently being addressed. We cannot make subjects like mathematics, physics and chemistry popular unless we modernise the infrastructure, not just in the big schools and the private schools in the greater Dublin area, but particularly in rural and smaller schools. That is not being given sufficient strategic attention by the Government.

Will the publication of the census report tomorrow permit the Minister and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to give an indication of local election boundaries, which is of great interest to all the political parties? What is the position regarding the electoral boundaries for the European elections? It is very important for the political parties to get this information as soon as possible. I thank the Taoiseach and the Minister of State for their presentations.

I join in welcoming the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin. For the benefit of both, I wish to reiterate what I said earlier in the presence of the Minister for Finance. The procedures today are, in essence, meaningless, given that these Estimates were published more than six months ago and spending on them is well advanced. However, this is a rare, important and welcome opportunity - the only one of which I am aware - for a Dáil committee to discuss the functions and performance of the Department of the Taoiseach with the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, although the opportunity is stilted in that the exchange of views will take place in an inappropriate format. We have also learned that, following the Chair's indication that he will have to leave at 2.25 p.m., we will lose 35 minutes in terms of our opportunity to engage with the Taoiseach. The Chairman has made similar reflections on the timing of these engagements and we hope the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach will review matters and propose a more appropriate format.

I am unable to be as generous as DeputyRichard Bruton in his opening remarks. The Taoiseach is the Leader of the Government and, as such, has an overseeing and co-ordinating role. He or she should not simply be the chairperson of a group of disparate and competing Ministers and Departments. Sometimes that appears to be the case in this Administration under the Taoiseach. I suspect the Taoiseach finds this to be politically useful because it allows the spotlight to settle on competing Ministers and allows him to avoid overall responsibility for presenting and ensuring coherent Government policy.

The public disagreement between the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance is a topical example of this approach. Those of us who are party health spokespersons are still awaiting the opportunity to see the publication of the sign-posted reports. I have no doubt that the exchange between Deputy Martin and Deputy McCreevy is viewed by many as an extraordinary pubic fall-out between two senior Ministers. It does not auger well for the overall management of two critical Departments. It was extraordinary that over this period, the Taoiseach had so little to say about it, at least in public. I have no doubt that today we will see the working out of this dispute in the publication of these reports, which I believe will represent a victory, all too sadly, for the Minister for Finance. It may not be spelt out like that but I have no doubt he will view it as such.

The new health services executive is one aspect of what has been sign-posted in the leaks. Its membership will include representatives of the Minister for Finance. Their role will be to watch like hawks. In this, as in other areas, the Government is engaging in wheeling and dealing and politicking. There is an absence of vision and clear political leadership. Good negotiation and administration does not necessarily amount to good leadership. For that clear vision, well-defined policies and the determination to carry them through, come what may, is required. Regrettably, and as I earlier indicated to the Minister for Finance, the Government has been sadly lacking in this regard and has thus squandered the massive and unique opportunity that arose over the past six years.

During the consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Finance, I outlined my party's view of the Government's flawed social and economic policies. There is a growing realisation, including in the ranks of the Taoiseach's party, that the Government is increasingly coming under the dominant role and influence of the right-wing policies of the Progressive Democrats. The Taoiseach will have to address this as he becomes more distant, even from his support base.

I noted the Taoiseach's comments regarding matters Northern. I again wish to record my party's wholehearted support for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and our commitment to working in tandem with the Taoiseach. I compliment the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government for their efforts in this area. It is my party's view that the cancellation of the Assembly elections by the British Prime Minister was a grave mistake. I urge the Taoiseach to press ever harder for a new date for the holding of the elections, certainly within the period he set out in his stated assessment, that is, no later than the autumn. I hope an earlier date will be set.

I note in the proposals under Vote 3 that the Taoiseach clearly intends to maintain the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. I refer to item D under the heading "Other Services". There is an increase of 52% on the figures provided for in 2002. What role does the Taoiseach envisage for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation with such an increase from €33,000 to €50,000 in the current year? Does he agree that one of the specific areas it could address is the importance and the need for increased outreach? I specifically recommend to the Taoiseach that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation consider in the current year organising a sitting in the Border counties, something it has yet to do. That would be a very welcome decision.

It would allow for a particular focus on the political, social and economic failures in terms of the promise, hope and expectation of ordinary people who have been the very backbone of the new political dispensation that maintains on this island. The reality in the Border region is that we have not seen the return or dividend that was promised and committed. The Government's record in the Border counties is such that, specifically in the central southern area, namely, the counties of Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan, one will see not only the failure to invest in both development and infrastructure but also that matters have, in fact, regressed in the context of hospital services and opportunities for communities in the form of leisure facilities, as evidenced by the closure of the only municipal swimming pool in County Monaghan. The reality is that, despite all the good words and promises, there is nothing real and structured to which people within those counties can point.

As with the Minister for Finance earlier, to whom I signposted this, I hope the Taoiseach takes on board the serious deficiencies in the criteria for qualification under Peace II and INTERREG IIIA. I highlighted both for the Minister for Finance and his colleagues. There is a real concern within the six southern Border counties that we will fail to realise the promise of the €225 million earmarked up to the end of 2004 given current estimates of a failure to draw down between €30 million and €80 million. This would be a significant failure and requires and warrants immediate Government intervention to free up the process of access to that critical funding that can make a difference to ordinary people's lives.

You have gone over your ten minutes, Deputy.

I had other points to make but I will have to hold off for another occasion.

Perhaps the Taoiseach would respond briefly to the comments.

I have no difficulty with the suggestion, which I know is the strong view of the Chairman, that we should rejig the year and deal with the Estimates earlier, if not at the end of the previous year with which there might be a difficulty because we do not have the completed Book of Estimates until we have the Revised Estimates volume. It makes sense to deal with the Estimates earlier in the year and I have no difficulty with that.

I thank Deputies for their comments and support on Northern Ireland issues. I take issue with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I was recently in Leitrim and, although I have been there a number of times, the progress and the——

I trust the Taoiseach was not opening an off-licence.

No, I was not.

Good. That is the Tánaiste's role.

I opened in Carrick-on-Shannon what was probably the best high-tech office I have seen anywhere in Ireland, with "always on" broadband to the best standards and people from throughout the world, never mind throughout Ireland, working there. I then went to view some of the nicest apartments I have seen and which could not be afforded in my native county. They looked on to beautiful stretches of water and were selling at very attractive prices. That is what I was doing. I envy Deputy Ó Caoláin living in the Border region where one can have many of these benefits and attractions, such as less expensive golf clubs and shooting clubs and other facilities. The Deputy is a privileged person in more ways than one.

Perhaps it is only the privileged people the Taoiseach is addressing in that regard. I referred to ordinary people whose lives have not changed.

The Border region has changed considerably.

I wish to answer some of the questions. Perhaps it would be good if I gave the committee the enormous amount of data I have on the modernisation programme for public services. There is a view that nothing is happening in this regard whereas that is not the case. I deal with the issue in parliamentary questions, but they often go off on tangents and do not reflect all that is happening. PA Consulting's report and what is happening in the SMI process and the verification group is quite interesting. That is not to say they constitute the entire reform of the civil and public service. Many people are putting in a great deal of effort and time. The public service is changing and this is reflected in benchmarking and the previous round of pay increases. Rather than going into detail on a huge document, I will present some of the facts at my disposal.

When I was Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, the person for whom I worked was considered a dictator because he made decisions for all Ministers. Now, if a person does not assume all responsibilities and make all decisions, he or she is said not to be dictating what is happening. I suppose the House has moved a little towards people who believe in dictatorships more now than they would have then. It would not be my view to go back to the days of dictatorship. I could do it and it is much easier to be Taoiseach if one makes up one's own mind and makes decisions without consultation, but it is not very democratic. Ministers assume their seal of office under the Constitution which gives them certain powers. They must deal with that. I believe in giving people a say and involvement, but ultimately it is a case of coming to a decision and we do that all the time. There was an enormous amount of heat in the House since last Christmas about freedom of information legislation. Under that legislation we were preventing the House knowing when a little difference had occurred between Ministers. These days, if there is a slight difference of opinion on policy issues, it constitutes a crisis. People should try to be consistent.

The benchmarking process was agreed in 1999, implemented in 2000 and 2001 and will be phased in up to 2005. It is a different concept to the old special increases. It is a systematic comparison with private sector equivalents. All increases are contingent on specific changes spelt out in detail by section and there is independent verification. Change will be delivered because, if there is no change, there will be no pay. That is what was agreed.

The use of consultants in the modernisation paper and other areas was limited to specific projects such as the design of information technology systems, independent evaluation and analysis. The Chairman knows what happens. I do not say this as a criticism of committee members because it has always been the same and I have probably been guilty of it myself in Opposition. However, the fact is that when a Government makes a decision without advisers, it is accused of being a crowd of dimwits for making the decision. When it hires advisers, it is accused of being a crowd of dimwits because it has hired people. If certain expertise is not in the public service, it is a good idea when spending taxpayers' money to obtain evaluation of decisions. The Government has done that in most projects. Consultants are normally allowed do their job. It is not a question of them being hired and told what to do.

I admire Deputy Richard Bruton's continuing interest in and consistent line on social partnership over many years, so I will not accuse him of inconsistency. He has made the argument for many years. I take account of much of what he has said on the subject over the years. His basic argument is that it is not as accountable to the Oireachtas as he would like and that there should be more involvement. He has made that argument and I accept his view on it. He is not the only one who makes that argument but in response to it my officials and I have been endeavouring to ensure the widest participation. This has the highest participation of all the models in Europe and takes in farm bodies, employers big and small, and community and voluntary sections. The spread on the issues addressed is wider than pay and welfare, though admittedly it started with that.

Sustaining Progress lists special initiatives such as those mentioned by Deputy Richard Burton regarding housing. I agree with much of what she said and this is an issue we should tackle. This cannot go on. Land can be agricultural land one day and at a certain price, while the next day it is rezoned and at a different price; I am not going to make an issue of defending that but it is not easy to change. There are constitutional issues and property rights issues. We are also looking at a section 4 planning decision that went to the Supreme Court some years ago. I have answered questions extensively in the House on this many times during this session.

The terms of Sustaining Progress were agreed by the Government in terms of its own programme. All progress reports and quarterly analyses are laid before the House. When those reports come out we are not averse in any way to debating them in the Oireachtas. Enormous work goes into the presentation of those reports, either in committee form or otherwise. I have no difficulty with those reports being debated.

The staffing schedules have been the subject of written answers to parliamentary questions this week, particularly the staff in my section and that of the Minister of State and the Government press section. The staffing issue has not changed much - overall it may have gone down somewhat with the section being moved around but it has not changed greatly. There are five or six people in the Government Information Service though that is probably not enough, as we have about 30 Sunday newspapers and one could spend all one's time keeping those occupied with titbits all week and all their queries - not that it is very informative for anyone. It is an enormous task to supply all those; then one has the more serious queries for Departments. It is a very difficult job for five or six people to deal with dozens of journalists but that is the service they provide.

The communications unit is not entirely of my Department, which meets only a proportion of the salary costs. The unit is saving money because years ago all the transcripts and tapes were brought in by outside companies. In 1997 we decided to stop that. The unit is manned by able members of the Civil Service who are totally bound by Civil Service rules. They have no political role. They are not senior people but they do a very good job in communicating and moving the information that comes through a wide range of media. They have no political purpose.

Regarding Deputy Burton's question, the document mentioned was prepared by advisers in my Department and sent out by the GIS. It cost under €5,000 and was sent out extensively. It is good practice for the Government to give an account of itself every so often. That was not the practice before 1997, when I started it. Nobody reads it or writes about it in a good year but everyone does in a difficult year. That is thenature of the job.

Regarding the SMI and the management information framework, that is designed to generate better information and activity on expenditure. I know what was said about the old position and developing a new format for the Book of Estimates is under way. That will link information to the sort of material in the annual reports of Departments.

I thank the Chair and the committee members. If I did not deal with all the questions I will check with my Department and provide the information to those who raised the questions.

Regarding the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, can the Taoiseach at least give us a hope that he will bring a sitting of that to the Border counties?

I will look at that.

To Cavan and Monaghan?

To the Border.

Let us be specific.

The Deputy is saying to bring it to his constituency.

The Taoiseach is afraid to go to Leitrim. He has been there.

I would not be averse to helping Deputy Ó Caoláin if I could get through the traffic jams, given the activity.

I would be delighted to see the Taoiseach there.

I thank the Taoiseach for his attendance. We will continue with the Estimates with the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin.

There were two specific questions put to me, one by Deputy Burton on broadband infrastructure which is actually a matter for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. A number of initiatives are taking place in that area, including the broadband metropolitan area network which is being rolled out in Cork, Galway and Mayo. That has already been announced. The telecom strategy group has been set up by the Minister with telecom operators and the relevant Departments. It is formulating policy on broadband delivery. Deputy Burton was correct in her comments on the cost of access, particularly for families. The always on-service is key to the information society and flat rate Internet access, or FRIACO, which is the wholesale product which will enable Internet operators to provide this service, will come on-stream on 25 June.

The Government has also entered into contracts to co-fund nine private broadband infrastructure projects in the regions to be completed by the end of this year. That includes DSL roll-out, 86 centres nationwide and an overall investment of €160 million, which is good progress.

On the census, the figures out tomorrow are not the ones the Deputy is thinking of. The most useful figures are those out on 3 July, which are the small area details. They could be used for the European constituencies.

Is it the Government's intention to revise the local authority boundaries and, if so, what is the timeframe for doing so?

That question is more appropriate for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who has been asked about this in the House.

It is not possible unless the information from the census is available. Is the Minister of State saying the information will be available from 3 July?

Yes, from 3 July the small area details will be given. We will not have the full and final results until April next year.

The Taoiseach did not deal fully with one query. I am looking at the 1997 Estimates against the present Estimates. Under the heading for Taoiseach's PR - Government press secretariat and information services - the staffing has increased from 11 to 17, so there is a substantial increase there, of over 50%, on the PR side. What has driven that? Why do we need so many more and how is this unit's performance justified or evaluated? It is an area which the Government obviously believes needs more resources, so what is being achieved for that?

Will the Deputy indicate the subhead reference for the benefit of other members of the committee?

It can be seen under subhead A1. I also made the point that the total number of staff in the Taoiseach's Department has grown from 83 to 135.5. That excludes the press office staff and so on. What drives the substantial increase in the staffing of the Taoiseach's Department? How are we to get a handle on whether we are getting value for money from this? What new programmes are involved or what new indications of performance have we got?

I raised the issue of the costs of tribunals and of legal representation generally on the part of the State. The DPP's payments to counsel will rise by 60% this year. Does that indicate a sudden new policy of going to court where previously we would not? What is going on behind such a rise? A figure of about €4 million has been put aside for tribunals of inquiry. We read in the newspapers this morning of nine millionaire payees of the tribunals. The single payment to one of those lawyers was equivalent to the Estimate here. Are the Estimates presented today realistic? Where are the rest of the costs, which were clearlypaid out according to the list in today's newspapers?

What is the policy now towards getting a better grip on this? I thought we had learned some lessons after the first tribunal and that we were running a tighter regime. A parliamentary reply I received showed that the terms of subsequent tribunals have been more generous in terms of payments and per diem allowances than previous ones. We seem to be getting worse rather than better at controlling costs. I know there are some proposals in the pipeline but could we have a sneak preview or see how we will achieve better value in this area?

I reiterate the question I put earlier. The Taoiseach indicated that the Government progress report had a total cost of €5,000. How many copies of it were produced, how many civil servants worked on it and how many hours were spent working on it?

In regard to subhead A1, dealing with the staff costs of €755,000 at the Government press secretariat and information services, the overtime costs were more than 50% of ordinary staff costs. This is quite unusual. How are those costs broken down? The army of spin doctors used, as the Taoiseach said, to spread the message, particularly to the Sunday newspapers, is a significant asset. Some Ministers fly more kites in the Sunday newspapers than others. Two who appear to give a tremendous amount of time to the Sunday newspapers are the Minister for Defence, Deputy M. Smith, who has had numerous solo runs in the newspapers, and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan. I am not quite sure whether he is runner up or in first place. He generally gives a sort of stream of consciousness account to the Sunday newspapers in regard to whatever idea he has had regarding selling a road, raising or lowering a tunnel, etc.

How can one get the information regarding how much is spent providing these services to the Taoiseach and his office and what is the breakdown of staff costs in the office? Is the use of consultants by the Taoiseach's office related to personal affairs such as dress, appearance and make-up or is it related to policy-driven areas? We would like to be able to access information as to what the costs are and what changes there have been in them. If the information is not available now could it be made available to us?

I understand that the difference in the staffing numbers relates to the media monitoring unit, on which the Taoiseach has already answered quite a number of parliamentary questions. There are an extra five involved in that.

Deputy Bruton asked what is new in the Estimates. The information society policy unit is new in the Department. Staff who were on loan for the SMI process have been absorbed into the staff of the Department. They had previously come from other Departments but are now core staff of the Department of the Taoiseach.

In regard to the question regarding the office of the DPP, the fees for counsel are higher this year than last because additional judges have been appointed to process cases in the Central Criminal Court. Deputies are aware of Mr. Justice Carney's initiative to sit in September and to move to places like Limerick. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the volume of cases this year. Extra costs were put in to cover that.

Can we have a breakdown between the volume of extra work and fees? How much of the 60% increase regards extra volume and how much is fees per case?

Extra fees will be needed to pay for the people taking on the extra cases.

Exactly. If the case volume is going up 30% and overall cost is going up 60%, it means the fee per case is going up 30%. What is the breakdown between volume and price in the overall spending increase?

It is not anticipated that the fees per case will change. The fee rates would increase with national pay agreements but other than that it is not anticipated that fees will increase per case.

Is the Deputy saying there is a 60% increase in DPP cases for the year?

No, the provision for fees is €6 million higher than last year. Out of the 60%, €6 million would go on fees. Counsel fees and legal costs account for 63% of all expenditure.

The cost is €6 million more. It has gone from €10 million and it is an increase of 60% according to the table.

Yes, it is €6 million higher than last year because of additional judges and additional money to deal with the increase in volume. It is also to do with the timing of the presentation of Bills, which was particularly low last year. There was an unusually low level of expenditure last year.

Maybe the Minister of State could send us a note on how the figure is made up. It sounds extraordinary.

The estimate for the tribunal is realistic because it is based on the cost of the legal team and on known rates which are not likely to change before the completion of the tribunal. On completion there will be other issues, which will then be decided by the tribunal, in regard to costs for any Member who attended before it. At the moment we are only talking about the fees for the legal team.

The figures of €3.2 million and €3.3 million for individual lawyers is an accumulation over three years

Five years. Remember, Mr. Justice Flood was to report before Christmas of 1997.

Can the Minister of State give us a sneak preview of her ideas, although I know it is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is sponsoring the legislation?

There is a lot of support for any kind of a system which would expedite the work. The Minister has already indicated that he is considering a type of statutory inquiry which would take place in private. It would precede any decision to establish a tribunal. He does not rule out the need for a tribunal but it might be that the issues to be dealt with could be dealt with more efficiently in a statutory private inquiry.

Has the Government made a decision on the legal challenge to the role of the Oireachtas in conducting investigations, which was a sort of belt and braces decision to throw us out of almost anything that could adversely reflect on anyone? What is the Government's view on that decision going forward? Do we need to try to reinstate a competence for our committees to take on investigative work, which could potentially adversely reflect on someone? Any debate on spending or about any issue in public policy can potentially adversely impact on people.

It was already decided not to proceed with the legislation to deal with the appointment of parliamentary inspectors, but it was hoped that the legislation on the commission of investigation would be published this session. That will give us an indication of where we are going on that matter.

The Minister of State did not respond to any of my questions.

On the question of consultancies, the human resources management system involved a cost of €88,000 in 2003 and no other requirements have been identified to date in that regard.

How many copies of the progress report were issued?

I understand 5,000 copies were printed.

The report cost only €1.

That is right. It represents good value and good government.

It is very out of line with other costs. Can the Minister of State give us more information on the breakdown of the costs involved?

I do not have that information.

Can the Minister of State send it to us? Does the figure shown represent the full cost involved or only the printing cost?

That is the printing cost.

I am interested in the overall cost and I am glad the Minister of State clarified that.

The overall cost would have been met by the people who are already working within the system such as the advisers - the political people who would have been involved in that.

Can the Minister of State give us a breakdown of the costs in respect of the consultants used, whether for personal adornment or for advisory consultancy, as regards projects?

This is not a consultancy issue.

I thought the people were employed on a contract basis on a daily rate. I do not know how to properly describe them, perhaps the Minster of State could help me. I am talking about the people who prepare the Taoiseach for his daily appearances. I am not sure how to technically describe them so I am in the Minister of State's hands. I think she knows what I am talking about.

I know that the Deputy and I share the make-up people of RTE when we go there. This is not a consultancy service. The fees for the services to which the Deputy referred are paid on a per diem basis, which is in line with the SIPTU rates paid to make-up artists, and the number of days is agreed with the Taoiseach.

Can the Minister of State give us the number of days and the amount involved?

I understand that is under the heading "Miscellaneous" under subhead A3 in the Estimate.

Is it identified there?

No, not specifically. It is covered under the heading "Miscellaneous".

Can the Minister of State give us the amount? She must have a breakdown with the detailed management accounting she does. I am sure she can give us information on the number of days, the daily rate and the total amount involved.

I do not have it to hand.

Can the Minster of State undertake to make it available to us?

I certainly will.

Can the Minister of State give us information on costs involving other consultancies of a non-personal nature regarding policy and so on?

The consultancy commissioned is the one I mentioned regarding human resources management, which involved a cost of €88,000. It was the only one commissioned.

Was it involved only in the strategic management initiative, or in what other projects was it involved?

Yes, it was involved in the implementation of the SMI.

As regards the earlier line of questioning by Deputy Richard Bruton in regard to Vote 3, subheads J, K and L, I noted carefully the contribution of the Taoiseach yesterday during the course of Taoiseach's Questions when he was at pains to emphasise that we could not have an unending stream of tribunals and what I would regard as the recent spinning apparently from Government that tribunals might, could and should be wound up. Will the Minister of State further elaborate on her reply to Deputy Bruton as to whether this is what is being considered? If the issue in question is that of the cost involved, surely the first responsibility of Government must be to tackle head on the issue of the exorbitant legal fees being demanded by practitioners attending the various tribunals in session? Will the Minister of State urge the Taoiseach to take on the legal profession in this instance and recognise that what we need is a new system of payments specifically designed to ensure that the cost of tribunals is kept to a reasonable and tolerable level, bearing in mind that tribunals do important work and should not necessarily be thrown out because of the cost considerations, which should be addressed?

As regards subhead L, specifically dealing with the independent commission of inquiry, is the figure committed in subhead L the expected final provision for the work of Mr. Justice Barron and the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings of 1974? That was the inference I took from the Taoiseach's earlier response. Can we take it that is the position as Mr. Justice Barron's report has been signalled by the Taoiseach for the umpteenth time with a final date for presentation in September? Is it the case that the report is now concluded?

As regards the Minister of State's responsibilities vis-à-vis the information society action plan and the five bullet point strands identified in the report, specifically the first one dealing with implementing the State’s broadband strategy, the Taoiseach indicated that he had recently attended an event in County Leitrim which I welcome, but when will he attend a similar event in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan regarding the introduction of broadband? Can the Minister of State throw any light on that particular need within the expectations of the commitments already given?

It is appropriate that I declare an interest in tribunals in light of my spouse. There is no question of shutting down tribunals, as Deputy Ó Caoláin seems to think might be the case, because of their cost. Everyone wants to make sure they are cost effective. There has been much comment about the fact that senior counsel are paid top rates to do investigative work, which is not necessarily the work of senior counsel, and that there are ways of expediting the work more efficiently, if such work were given to other people, and then the legal work could start. Prior to a decision being taken to establish a tribunal, it is necessary to consider whether other work can be done privately by the appropriate people, which would ensure that we would get better value from the work of the tribunal.

As regards subhead L, the work of the independent commission of inquiry is drawing to completion, but if any further costs are incurred, they will be met from within the Vote this year.

I have answered the question regarding broadband for Deputy Burton. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and is being rolled out to the regions under his initiative. If the Deputy raises the matter with the Minister, he may be able to provide a better idea of the situation in Cavan and Monaghan.

We are going to draw the discussion to a close in a moment.

Mention was made earlier of the social partnership system which has been the envy of many European states in recent years. Parliamentary delegations from EU member states and accession countries have shown a great interest in our system and the benefits which have accrued to the State from it in terms of the reduction in lost work days, etc. While I appreciate very much the points made by DeputyRichard Bruton, the social partnership model has stood the test of time and we can be very proud of it. It has brought prosperity to this country.

The recent decision to roll out broadband to 19 centres in the midlands and the west, including part of Deputy Ó Caoláin's constituency, is very welcome. There was a launch recently in the Chairm an's home town in the midlands. A new technology system pilot programme has been accepted by the BMW region where three locations are to benefit, two of which are in my constituency. The other is in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. It is for progressive communities to make their own applications and in the next round of such development, that will become very much the norm for small villages and towns. It is very important for new technology roll out that broadband is to be delivered to 19 centres in the midlands and the west. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is to be complimented, as is the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin. The programme has been very well received in the part of the country from which I come.

Does the Minister of State agree that the Estimates next year should be accompanied by a strategic statement from the bodies concerned, be they the Office of the Chief State Solicitor or the CSO, which includes reference to performance indicators? This debate is a charade as anyone who comes here knows. We are looking at lists of numbers and picking those which seem to be out of line, but it is a nonsensical activity for all of us. We need to have a genuine handle on what the Departments are trying to achieve and we need to know if they are being successful. We could then tell whether or not the extra money being sought under various subheads is justified. Will the Minister of State make that commitment?

It strikes me as strange that while the DPP's staff level is up 5%, his wage and salary bill has increased by 32%. Is there some reason the staff of the DPP are being paid an extra 25% this year as appears to be the case? The same is true of the Chief State Solicitor. In provincial areas, 32 State solicitors are being employed part time at a cost of €101,000 each. That is extraordinarily high on the face of it. I make the points to illustrate the fact that we are left here with ridiculous papers to examine to make sense of what is happening in these agencies. Those are two matters on which the Minister of State could reply, but the most valuable thing she could do would be to undertake that we will not have this sort of charade next year. We should be presented with a page or two of strategic planning documentation which we can assess and evaluate in the context of value for money.

The figure for salaries at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provides for full-year salary costs for a significant number of new posts arising from the implementation of the Nally report and for the allocation of the first phase of benchmarking.

There is a staff increase of only 5%, but there is a pay increase of 32%.

It is the full year cost for people who were not there for the full year last year.

The full year cost is still only 5%.

It is 5% plus the cost for people who were there for part of last year who will be paid a full-year salary.

It is being ramped up at a very rapid pace.

Yes. There has been a transfer of people from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. I agree with Deputy Bruton. It would be helpful if we had——

What of the €101,000 payment to part-time workers?

That covers personal salary staff costs to cover the State solicitors' costs in providing support staff on State work and expenses to meet overheads in relation to solicitors' services on behalf of the State. There is one solicitor in each county, though the bigger counties may have more than one. Cork has four State solicitors while Limerick, Tipperary, Galway and Kildare have two each.

This is a contracting out operation. Is there an evaluation made of the merits of contracting this work to these new people who are receiving salaries plus overheads?

That was studied in the independent review published as the Nally report. As Deputy Richard Bruton has said, it would be helpful in the future to be presented with a strategic statement. The Department of the Taoiseach is working towards that goal. Such a measure would allow the Departments to do justice to themselves in the answers they give rather than through the answers I give on their behalf. We will certainly look at the matter.

We now draw our consideration of the Estimates to a conclusion. Before the Minister of State leaves, I wish to highlight the timing of the Estimates, a matter raised with the Minister for Finance this morning as well as at an earlier debate of this committee. All members of the committee agree that discussing the Estimates in June, by which time half of the money has already been spent and most of it is committed, is not a very fruitful or timely exercise. As the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service, we believe the Estimates should be discussed by the respective committees in a more timely manner in future. It is within the control of the Houses of the Oireachtas to address the matter to some extent. It is not strictly a matter for the Departments.

I understand the sequence of events in relation to the Estimate this year. The pre-budget or abridged Estimates were issued on 15 November 2002 with a brief Dáil debate taking place the following week. The Revised Estimates to take account of social welfare increases in the budget, benchmarking and other budget increases were published in February 2003. At the very latest, all committees should discuss Estimates the week after they are published in February. Last year we discussed the Estimates much earlier as it was an election year. Perhaps we should have a more substantive discussion of Estimates in November with a wrap-up debate when the final Estimates are published in February. There is not much point to discussing them after the money is spent.

On a point of information, am I not correct to state that the Minister for Finance proposed the Estimates be agreed in September, which is well ahead of the budget? There would therefore be a period in which we would have a meaningful debate about the proposed Estimates before the budget took place. This proposal was made about five years ago.

This morning the Minister for Finance dated this engagement to after the process in relation to the Book of Estimates, the budget and the publication of the Finance Bill. He dated the debate to an earlier time in February or March, which disappointed me as I had made the very point Deputy Richard Bruton is making. We do not want to react subsequent to the publication of the Estimates. We want to engage proactively as the process is unfolding.

No commercial organisation would discuss its annual budget half way through the year, and everybody in the House would agree with this.

Barr
Roinn