Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Nov 2003

Vol. 1 No. 17

Estimates for Public Services 2003.

Vote 5 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Supplementary).

Vote 10 - Office of Public Works (Supplementary).

Vote 16 - Civil Service Commission (Supplementary).

Vote 17 - Office of the Ombudsman (Supplementary).

Vote 44 - Increases in Remuneration and Pensions (Supplementary).

On 25 November the Dáil ordered that the following Supplementary Estimates be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 5 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 10 - Office of Public Works; Vote 16 - Civil Service Commission; Vote 17 - Office of the Ombudsman; and Vote 44 - Increases in Remuneration and Pensions. I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and his officials for attending and assisting in our consideration.

A draft timetable was circulated to members and I propose we adhere to it for our discussion. We have allowed for a ten minute opening statement by the Minister of State and ten minutes each for an opening statement by the spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Technical Group. Members within each of the groups may share time. There will then be an open discussion of one hour at most. Is the timetable agreed to? Agreed.

I am pleased to appear before the committee to present for its consideration five Supplementary Estimates which arise under the Finance group of Votes. They are as follows: Vote 5 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 10 - Office of Public Works; Vote 16 - Civil Service Commission; Vote 17 - Office of the Ombudsman; and Vote 44 - Increases in Remuneration and Pensions.

The first Supplementary Estimate for which the committee's approval is sought is Vote 5. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is seeking a gross Supplementary Estimate of €800,000 to fund additional running costs of the office. This will be offset by applying surplus appropriations-in-aid of €799,000 which arise from the generation of additional audit fees due to progress made in tackling the arrears of financial audits, giving a net requirement for a Supplementary Estimate of €1,000.

These are the main reasons for the excess expenditure. The additional salary costs arise, inter alia, from the acceleration of the office’s arrears elimination drive. As a result, certain payments to contractors, met from this subhead, will mature for payment in 2003.

Travel and subsistence expenditure is a significant part of the office's costs and the Estimate in 2003 amounted to €731,000. The recent revision to the subsistence rates effective from 1 January 2003 will increase this subhead expenditure by €50,000.

The Office of Public Works advised that the Comptroller and Auditor General's accommodation at Harcourt Road required refurbishment. Following a tender process conducted by the Office of Public Works, the cost of the refurbishment has been estimated at €450,000.

The next Supplementary Estimate for which the committee's approval is sought is Vote 10 - Office of Public Works. A grant-in-aid of €750,000 to assist refurbishment works at Maynooth College was included within the Office of Public Works Vote in 2003. This was entered in the Revised Estimates Volume, 2003, as a "Grant-in-aid for Maynooth College Library". The refurbishment works are, in fact, being carried out on the college chapel. The purpose of this token Supplementary Estimate is to update the entry to "Grant-in-aid for Maynooth College Chapel" enabling the Office of Public Works to issue payment of the grant-in-aid to Maynooth College for the purposes for which it was originally intended.

The next Supplementary Estimate for which the committee's approval is sought is Vote 16 - Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission is seeking a gross Supplementary Estimate of €350,000 to meet additional expenses arising within its Vote. The gross amount will be offset by additional appropriations-in-aid receipts of €170,000, giving a net requirement for a Supplementary Estimate of €180,000. The main reasons for the excess expenditure are as follows: payments due to the Office of Public Works in connection with moving to its new headquarters in Chapter House and undertaking open recruitment initiatives under Sustaining Progress.

The next Supplementary Estimate for which the committee's approval is sought is Vote 17 - Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is seeking a gross Supplementary Estimate of €120,000 to meet additional expenditure arising within the Vote. As an offset against this sum, the Estimate provision under subhead A7 will be reduced by €20,000, giving a net requirement for a Supplementary Estimate of €100,000. The main reason for the excess expenditure is as follows: during 2003 Mr. Kevin Murphy, the former Ombudsman, announced his intention to retire from office on 1 June. Under the Ombudsman superannuation (amendment) scheme 2003, he was entitled to a lump sum of one year's salary, €172,000, on his retirement. As the announcement of his retirement was made during the year and also because the Ombudsman superannuation (amendment) scheme 2003 did not come into force until 16 April 2003, it had not been possible to include provision for the lump sum in the 2003 Estimate.

The last Supplementary Estimate for which the committee's approval is sought is Vote 44 - Increases in Remuneration and Pensions. This is required to cover the cost of an agreed settlement to an equal pay claim on behalf of clerical grades in the Civil Service. This claim dates back to 1991 when the Civil and Public Service Union, CPSU, lodged claims on behalf of 26 female clerical assistants seeking equal pay with paperkeepers, a predominantly male grade while the clerical assistant grade was predominantly female. A further approximately 2,200 persons subsequently lodged similar claims in 1997. Both grades of clerical assistant and paperkeeper ceased to exist in late 1997 when they were amalgamated and absorbed into the clerical officer grade as part of a restructuring of clerical grades in the Civil Service.

The Labour Court found in favour of the claim on behalf of the original 26 claimants. While the finding was appealed to the High Court, discussions between the Department of Finance and the CPSU produced a settlement of the claims made by the original claimants and those who had lodged subsequent claims in 1997. Those serving in clerical grades in 1997 who continue to serve in these grades are also covered by the agreement. The agreement with the CPSU will result in each person covered by the agreement receiving €5,000 in settlement of the claim. Establishing the precise number who qualify for payment has proved very complicated but the total is approximately 6,900. When account is taken of employers' PRSI, the overall cost could reach €36 million, for which it is proposed to provide. Individual Departments will pay the settlement to each person covered and recoup the funds from this supplementary Vote in accordance with a practice established to cater for outstanding pay increases in previous years.

That completes my brief summary of the five Supplementary Estimates before the committee. I thank members for their attention and will do my best to deal with any questions they may wish to ask.

I thank the Minister of State.

Given that we do not intend to make a statement as such, is it better to begin questioning under each of the individual subheads? We will forgo our allocation of ten minutes on the understanding we will have plenty of time to look at the individual subheads.

Do I have the agreement of the committee to move straight to questions?

Does Deputy Burton wish to make a statement?

Yes. If the Deputy wishes to take questions first——

In that case I will call Deputy Burton. Deputy McGrath has indicated he will come in at the questions stage. We had allocated ten minutes for each of the following: the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Technical Group.

I will also solely utilise the questions opportunity.

Deputy Burton is free to make an opening statement.

I want to ask the Minister of State——

If the Deputy wishes to put a question straightaway, we will commence with questions and Deputy McGrath.

How is it intended to proceed? Is it intended to take questions under each Vote or that we say our piece on all of them?

Members may wish to deal with Vote 5 in the first instance. We shall dispose of each Vote as promptly as possible.

What is the reason for the increase in expenses in respect of office premises? Why did the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General need additional space? Has it taken on additional staff and, if so, why was the need for additional office accommodation not anticipated in the original Estimate? Staff and accommodation should be provided for together, not separately. There is no provision that I can see for additional staff.

On the same subhead, can the Minister of State indicate to the committee the premises used by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; if they are owned by the Office of Public Works, or leased or rented? If new property was required, was the normal tendering procedure used? On that issue - the Chairman will have an interest in this - to what extent were out-of-town properties looked at? We are all aware of the rental costs associated with property in the city. Did the Minister of State look at the possibility of locating some of the offices in question down the country where he would get very good offers in terms of costings and so on?

Are there any further questions on Vote 5 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

In the first volume of his report, published recently, the Comptroller and Auditor General conducted a significant examination of the work of the Revenue Commissioners and, in particular, a review of the number of audits carried out by them. In the context of self-assessment, the number of audits carried out last year was 15,931, compared to a figure of 15,982. The Comptroller and Auditor General shows that where an audit was carried out, there was a very healthy return in increased taxes. In the profile which he gives on a number of audits carried out, the actual return was approximately €256 million compared to a figure of €151 million expected in increased taxation from those audited. This represents 51% of those audited. Given that the Opposition and others complain about lack of value for money in the public service, this represents great value for money. Why does the Comptroller and Auditor General not target more people for audit?

I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance yesterday asking how many in the country are non-resident for tax purposes. The Minister replied that the Revenue Commissioners were unable to give a figure. There has been one famous case involving a person who acquired a State asset, subsequently sold it for a profit of approximately €250 million and went to live offshore to avoid a potential capital gains tax liability of about €50 million. In an environment in which the Minister has taken €58 million from the social welfare Estimates and PAYE taxpayers have had their allowances and credits effectively frozen, at an estimated cost of over €300 million in extra tax paid by them, why is the Minister of State not seeking far more resources for the offices of both the Revenue Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General?

We are facing tough times during which some of the most vulnerable in society will pay the cost of the €58 million in cutbacks. However, every day in the business pages of the newspapers one can read about the disposal of capital assets, with a car dealership being sold here and a business sold there. Our tax rules are so lax with regard to non-residency compared to those in the United Kingdom, the United States and most other jurisdictions that not only did we have that famous case two or three years ago but also, because of the increase in asset values in recent years, we stand to lose tens of millions of euro in capital gains and other taxes because the Revenue Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General do not even know the number who are non-residents for tax purposes.

One might say this is off the point when discussing a Supplementary Estimate. However, last Thursday the Minister made a number of tough announcements in the House. I doubt that PAYE workers will be jumping for joy after next Wednesday. Is the Minister prepared to commit himself to reviewing the non-residency rules? Is he committed to giving additional resources to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Revenue Commissioners to carry out more audits since they are so profitable? That is a compliment to the work of the Revenue Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General in an environment in which many find it easy to target public servants and complain about them.

I have allowed the Deputy to make an opening statement but matters dealt with in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, currently before the Committee of Public Accounts, cannot, under Standing Orders, be discussed at any other committee.

I am talking about the resources allocated to the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I asked if the Minister would consider giving additional resources to that office to ensure more compliance in the tax system, specifically with regard to those who had put in a request to be non-resident for tax purposes, yet who were able to be here 280 days and nights of the year in addition to any day or time they chose. We see them in the country all the time but they are not resident for tax purposes. It is deeply offensive to compliant PAYE taxpayers and those suffering from the social welfare cuts.

The Deputy has exhausted all of her time for any statement she might wish to make during the course of the meeting. We will deal with any questions she has that are relevant to the Supplementary Estimate but matters before the Committee of Public Accounts cannot be discussed. With regard to those relating to the Revenue Commissioners, we can invite them to come before the committee on another date. The Minister will be with the committee for a number of days to deal with the Finance Bill and most of the Deputy's comments can be addressed to him then. I ask the Minister of State to respond only to the questions relating to the Supplementary Estimate.

I hope all members will have the chance to ask a question. Are you calling each of us in turn?

We will take all of the questions first and then call the Minister of State.

My questions are straightforward. There is an appropriations-in-aid sum of €799,000 in the Estimate. My understanding of appropriations-in-aid heretofore has been that they are used as a type of contingency fund. Is that the case, or was it not the case in this instance? Was it operated on the basis of a contingency fund? It is open to interpretation that this was an accrual of additional fees over and above those estimated for the year.

How many staff are in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General? A significant element of the additional funding required relates to salary costs. In the explanation for the additional moneys required it is stated the additional salary costs accrue from the acceleration of the office's arrears elimination drive. Does this mean there were additional staff, or was additional overtime or weekend work required? How was the figure arrived at? If it represents salary costs, will the Minister of State explain the reason certain payments are now due to contractors? Will he differentiate between my understanding of staff salaries and payments due to contractors which are included under the single heading? It seems strange.

The Office of Public Works is the responsibility of the Minister of State. It advised that the Comptroller and Auditor General's accommodation at Harcourt Road required refurbishment at a cost of slightly less than €500,000. Deputy McGrath's question is valid. Was any consideration given to relocating the office outside Dublin city?

Deputy Bruton asked the reason there was more office space. It was not to provide more office space but to refit the existing office occupied by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am not sure but I believe it is leased. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been located there for some time. There are 169 staff in the office. Whether the office remained there was an issue for him and his group. There was no question of it being part of a decentralisation plan. Perhaps it might be a decision in the future but the office was fitted out according to the normal process for which the money came from its Vote. The Office of Public Works did the work but it was not an Office of Public Works investment in the office.

The sum of €450,000 was in addition to funds already allocated for the refurbishment.

No, it was the total cost. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General sought the refurbishment and the funds came from within its Vote. It was its refurbishment, laid out as it wanted.

How many square feet were refurbished for that amount of money? Did the Minister of State get a square foot costing forit?

I do not have the figure with me. However, this is an office to accommodate 169 staff. Therefore, there is a substantial amount of office space.

Was all or part of the office refurbished?

I am advised that the office in Harcourt Road was fully refitted but it would not have accommodated all 169 staff. If the Deputy was to refit his kitchen, he would be shocked at the cost per square foot.

I thank Deputy Burton for her comments on the great value for money achieved. As usual, she took the opportunity to raise issues totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

The issue of social welfare cuts is very relevant, as is the issue of non-residents.

The Minister of State has the floor and should be allowed to make his contribution.

It is not relevant to this Vote.

The duty of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is to audit the accounts of State and semi-State bodies. The auditing of the accounts of non-residents is an issue for the Revenue Commissioners. However, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General audits the accounts of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General was tackling the issue of arrears in respect of financial audits and bringing them up to date. Obviously, it had to devote more time to this and hired contractors to expedite the process, whose pay came under the salaries heading. That answers Deputy Ó Caoláin's question.

I understand the auditing of accounts is not totally up to date but that is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General. As he is good at passing judgment on other bodies, perhaps he could inquire into the affairs of his own office.

The question was asked if the appropriations-in-aid sum comprised a contingency fund. It does not. Different semi-State and State bodies pay their Comptroller and Auditor General audit fees from their own Vote. One could say this money is washing around in the system but, in terms of each organisation being responsible for its own Vote, the best means of controlling the issue would be by requiring each State or semi-State body to pay the Comptroller and Auditor General the fee for its audit. The extra work done in respect of arrears brought in a sum of €799,000 - the actual audit income from the other semi-State bodies.

Has there been an assessment of cost-effectiveness in terms of the contracted staff who assisted in the speeding up of audits? Has any consideration been given to bringing in permanent additional staff? Is it the case that staff contracted in might be more expensive than an increased in-house complement of staff? Will the contracting of staff continue in 2004? Has this practice become part of the permanent procedures within the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General? If the number of 169 staff is inadequate, clearly there are advantages to having further staff address audit demands. Irrespective of feelings on employment in the broader Civil Service, might it not be preferable to have full-time staff employed in the system?

I understand there is a programme to recruit more permanent staff for Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Deputy Burton referred to good value for money. This implies that the process was going to pay for itself. Although the Minister for Finance has announced a cap and a reduction in the overall number of civil servants, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has plans to increase its permanent workforce. However, as soon as the arrears are dealt with, the extra €799,000 in appropriations-in-aid might not be necessary. When the office is on an even keel, a more even spread of staff will be able to cope with the business.

For the benefit of Deputy Ó Caoláin, one reason for the significant arrears is the DIRT inquiry, which we will all recall. It was a mammoth inquiry by a Dáil committee, on which the Comptroller and Auditor General spent much time and resources. He is now catching up on the work possibly left to one side during the inquiry. It is a catch-up game and we understand he is almost up to speed.

Are there any questions on Vote 10 - Office of Public Works?

I presume I am correct in saying this Vote involves a bookkeeping exercise. Given that money was allocated for Maynooth College library, when did the Minister of State discover that it had not been spent on this but on the college chapel, which is, incidentally, a very fine one? How did this come to his attention? Did the college authorities contact him or his Department before work started to ask if the money could be spent on the chapel rather than the library? Alternatively, had the work been proceeded with in the chapel and the money drawn down before he was contacted? Did he send somebody to check the work or seek a certificate of completion? If so, who? If discussions are taking place, at what stage are they?

This raises a minor query. I understood - I might be totally wrong - that it would not be appropriate for a Government to grant-aid directly a church of a particular denomination. I know funding is made available from the European Union through the heritage programme for the refurbishment of various churches. However, this must be the first time ever that Government money was given for the refurbishment of a chapel of a particular denomination. Will this cause a problem or set a precedent for such refurbishments? Has the Minister of State investigated such precedents and whether the Government is entitled to fund particular denominations in the manner that the church in Maynooth College was funded?

I ask the Minister of State to respond because he might answer some questions other members of the committee intend to ask.

The simple answer to this problem is that it was a typographical error - the use of the word "library" rather than "chapel". It was no more complicated than this. There was a general reference to Maynooth College library. I have the note presented to the committee on 18 May and it refers to "Maynooth College Library". I understand students of many denominations and none attend the college. The church is used for recitals as well as religious services.

The grant-in-aid has not yet been paid - the reason we are here. It can only be paid in respect of the chapel. The college has already spent about €1 million on the refurbishment and the grant-in-aid is intended to partly fund this process. The Office of Public Works has examined the work and is happy that it is very positive and that the money is being well spent. Part of the problem was that water was leaking into the church and a stitch in time saves nine. We have not yet paid the grant to Maynooth College and it cannot be paid until such time as the committee clears the Vote. It was a typographical error.

Does the Minister of State expect us to believe it could have been a typographical error? If grant aid had been applied for, surely normal procedure would have been followed. If a sum of €5,000 is being sought for a local gymnastics club, the application must be accompanied by all sorts of documentation, including an outline plan indicating who is involved, on what the money will be spent and quotations for the work, etc. Is the Minister of State telling me that such documentation was not submitted with the application? If it had, surely it would have been as clear as the nose on one's face that it was for the chapel rather than the library. I do not accept that it was a typographical error. If I remember rightly, this was announced in the budget package. Was this announced when no real application had been made but rather a verbal representation was made to the local Deputy who, I think, happened to be the Minister?

It might be in the Deputy's constituency.

Maynooth is not located in my constituency but in County Kildare - I think in the Minister's constituency. I wonder what was the procedure and whether we have another Punchestown on our hands. How was the money sought? Were proper applications, with the appropriate documents, made? Perhaps the Minister of State can give us the details and circulate some of the documents which may be worth seeing.

We now know the priorities of the Minister for Finance as the project in Punchestown, a cathedral to horses, received €17 million. On the other hand, Maynooth College chapel is used for another purpose. It is definitely located in the Minister's constituency.

There is an important point to be made. While Maynooth College chapel is an important building, it has traditionally been associated with one religion. I understand the State does not directly subsidise religious bodies. However, Ireland has a heritage of important buildings held by all religious bodies and which are costly to maintain. Are there guidelines to be followed when the State becomes involved in the refurbishment of a religious property still used for worship? How can a distinction be made between support for a religious denomination, which is not permitted, and support for an historic building?

This matter will be of interest to those who undertake fund-raising to help with the refurbishment of religious buildings. How does one get on the inside track? Are such schemes advertised? Can other cathedrals apply for funding or is it important to be located in Kildare North?

Maynooth College campus is of historical importance. Most members are aware of colleges and would know that a chapel is as much a part of a campus as a library. While it is used for worship, it is also used for recitals and other events. I do not see how we can differentiate between a library and a chapel on a college campus.

I am sure there are different ratios of attendance between the two places.

I am not so sure that we should dismiss the time students spend on meditation, either in the library or the chapel. I would not cast aspersions on them in that regard. The Minister of State has told us that there was an error in the application and if the money is to be paid to a facility on the campus, I do not see where the problem lies.

It beggars belief that we could try to convince ourselves that there is no difference between a chapel and a library. If we think about Punchestown, perhaps it is not a cathedral for horses at all; it may be a great mart.

It is the Punchestown Events Centre.

Perhaps we could see a cattle mart and one might not know the difference between a horse and a cow. There are many similarities. That is the issue members are raising.

The final sentence of the explanation reads, "grant-in-aid to Maynooth College for the purposes for which the grant-in-aid was originally intended". In his proposal to the committee the Minister of State clearly states the grant was intended for the college chapel from day one and that there is no question or doubt about this. How was the initial contact made? Was it made through the Office of Public Works directly? Does the Office of Public Works have any particular responsibility in respect of the chapel at Maynooth College, or any of the college's structural resources, including the library? Did the Minister for Finance have a specific role or function in communicating the request for grant-in-aid in this case? On what grounds did the Office of Public Works or the Minister commit the grant-in-aid?

It is important that we know the nature of the special relationship between the Office of Public Works and Maynooth College, irrespective of whether we are talking about the library or the chapel. I can point to chapels and churches in my constituency that would benefit from Office of Public Works support. Some are of historical importance. While it may not be on the same scale as the buildings at Maynooth College, they are no less deserving of the Office of Public Works's interest and support. Will the Minister of State afford us access to the documentation that will confirm the assertion that it was always intended for the chapel? How did the difficulty arise in order that it appeared it was intended for the library? How was the request for funds first furnished and communicated?

There are many precedents for representations to be made to the Government under Vote 10 - grant-in-aid for projects - seeking State support from the Minister for Finance. Members may know of the Irish College in Paris where I was lucky to be present for the opening of the refurbished facility for which grant-in-aid was provided under Vote 10 to the tune of €10.5 million in 2000 and €6.349 million in 2001. There is also a precedent in Louvain, the equivalent of the Irish College in Brussels which is used by the Irish community. It has received a sum of €1.281 million, including €381,000 in 2002. Christchurch Cathedral in Waterford received a sum of €1.27 million. St. Isidore's College in Rome received a sum of €1.27 million in 2002 while the Irish College in the same city received a sum of €254,000 in 2001. There is, therefore, a precedent for colleges and churches making applications.

In the case of Maynooth College, a sum of €1 million from its own funds had already been spent before it sought grant-in-aid. I do not know the college, nor the proximity of the library to the chapel, but it was as straightforward and simple as that. It slipped by. One could find a skeleton in every cupboard if one liked. There was never any intention to spend the money on the library. It was intended to spend it on the chapel, on which a sum of €1 million had already been spent.

To ensure transparency we are coming back to the committee to clear up matters and allow the sum of €750,000 provided for in the Estimates to be spent where it was originally intended to be spent. There is no other story attached to this.

In the interests of transparency, which the Minister of State mentioned, perhaps he will make available the documentation exchanged prior to the sanctioning of the grant. When did it become clear that a mistake had been made? Why was the matter not brought back to the Houses at that stage in order that it could be put right immediately? Why was it left until the eleventh hour, until the the Supplementary Estimate was introduced, or has it only come to the attention of the Minister of State in the last while?

This is the forum in which to clarify the matter. The money is about to fall due for payment. The mistake has been known for a while, although I do not know for how long. When we appeared before the committee on 18 June, we were not aware of it and the documentation provided for the committee at the time clearly stated that the grant-in-aid was for Maynooth College library. It just slipped by. As far as the college was concerned, whether it was for the chapel or the library was not such a big issue. However, for the sake of full transparency and to abide by the original intention, it is necessary that it be changed. That is the reason we have the Supplementary Estimate, incurring additional expense of just €1,000.

We will move on to Vote 16 - Civil Service Commission.

On subhead A1, the Civil Service Commission was asked to undertake a range of open recruitment initiatives as set out in Sustaining Progress and indicated in the benchmarking report. I asked the Minister for Finance a while ago how many new civil servants had been recruited under the open recruitment procedures and the figure was disappointingly low. About 20 people were interviewed for promotional posts but only about five were recruited from outside the Civil Service. At what stage is this programme? The amount of money involved, if I am reading it correctly, is quite large. Why is it so much more expensive?

Subhead A8 also has to do with the open recruitment initiatives. Again, the cost is very high compared to the small number recruited. Perhaps the Minister of State will explain this. While I know the costs may be offset by people paying fees to enter competitions, I would like to know the results of the open recruitment initiatives.

I do not know at what stage the open recruitment initiative is. That does not come within my remit - it is an issue for the Civil Service Commission. The costs incurred under subhead A8 - an extra €200,000 - were for accommodation, advertising and the purchasing and printing of test papers. The Civil Service Commission had additional requirements in terms of accommodation, including audio-visual equipment and soundproofing for offices and compartments in order that interviews could take place within a confined area. Whenever a Department seeks particular additional services, it is obliged to pay for them from within its own Vote. They were specific additional requirements over and above what had been expected.

Why would that come under——

A vote has been called in the Dáil. Do members want to conclude their consideration or return afterwards? Ultimately, the matter can be voted on in the Dáil if there are any problems.

The first two were the Votes in which I had a specific interest. I would be prepared to accept the others in line with the Minister of State's request. Before I rush off to vote against him once again, will he provide the committee with the information on the Maynooth College Vote as requested by Deputy McGrath and me? He did not conclude his remarks with an affirmation.

I am sure that if the Deputy wants the information, it will be provided. It is not in my possession - it is an issue for the Minister.

The Deputy is the Minister of State.

Deputies are asking the Minister of State to come back with a response to the question about whether the information is available.

I will come back with a response.

It is inappropriate for the Minister of State to leave the question open. We have a responsibility.

The Minister of State should come back with a response about whether the information is available.

Barr
Roinn