Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Jun 2010

2009 Annual Output Statement — Department of Finance

Under consideration is No. 1, Department of Finance group of Revised Estimates. The Dáil ordered the following Revised Estimates for the public service be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 1, President's Establishment; Vote 5, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 6, the 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, Public Appointments Service; Vote 17, Office of the Commissioner for Public Service Appointments; and Vote 18, Office of the Ombudsman.

I welcome the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is consider the Revised Estimates as set out and the output statement for the Finance group of Votes. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated.

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the select committee as it considers the 2010 Estimates and annual output statements for my Department's group of Votes. I am happy also to discuss the ECOFIN Council Opinion on Ireland's stability programme update which was published with the budget. The Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh, will present the Estimate and output statement for the Office of Public Works to the committee separately tomorrow so I will confine my comments to a number of significant areas within the Vote group which I consider will be of most interest to the Deputies.

This year, I am again presenting a comprehensive annual output statement for the finance group of Votes. The output statement seeks to show the connection between the resources that are being spent and the services that are being delivered, and naturally I expect that this will be of particular interest to this committee. In preparing the annual output statement, my Department has endeavoured to simplify the document in so far as possible by focusing in on the key headline outputs for each particular area, with a view to making the overall document more concise and usable. The document also now incorporates the annual progress report on the statement of strategy.

As in previous years, I welcome the constructive and critical views of committee members on ways of improving the output statement in the interests of facilitating the important task of Dáil scrutiny and public accountability. By setting out clear performance targets, and reporting each year on success or otherwise in delivering on these targets, the onus is upon all concerned to see that the system is performing effectively and efficiently.

The key element is to relate what we do and how well we do it to the resources used in doing so. This is an area that I intend to build upon in the future to sharpen the focus upon performance and delivery right across Government, and I will listen with particular interest to the views of Deputies in this regard.

In my budget speech last December, I outlined that the most intense phase of the economic crisis was behind us. It is fair to say, and most economic commentators would agree, that the latest data bear this out. Internationally, a modest recovery is under way in many of our trading partners. This will generate demand for our exports, thereby supporting economic activity in this country. Provided that we continue to achieve the necessary competitiveness improvements, I am confident that we can re-position our economy in high value-added export sectors in the coming years.

There is also mounting evidence that economic conditions are stabilising on the domestic front. Consumer confidence is returning, car sales have been strong and tax revenue has been broadly in line with expectations. I am aware that unemployment has risen over the past month or two but this seems to be due mainly to specific seasonal factors and is not necessarily reflective of a setback to underlying labour market conditions.

In summary, therefore, the fall in economic activity is probably past its low point. If we continue to do the right things, we can expect the recovery to gather momentum in the months ahead. As a nation, we have gained considerable international respect for the competitiveness and fiscal adjustments that we have implemented over the past two difficult years. Those who lend us money are quite complimentary about what we have achieved. We have more to do, there can be no doubt about that, especially in the context of tightened financial conditions internationally. We are, however, on the right path and the measures we are implementing are already beginning to pay off.

The past two years have been economically and financially challenging for many countries around the world and Ireland is no exception. We have been particularly affected due to our considerable economic openness, the severity of the global financial crisis and domestic pressures in our own economy, most notably the ongoing recession in the construction sector. Restoring sustainability to our public finances is a crucial element in ensuring that the correct environment for a return to economic growth exists.

The public finances, in particular tax receipts, have been very severely impacted upon by the sharp economic deterioration. Tax revenue in 2010 is expected to be in the region of €31 billion, a decline of almost 35% on the level of taxes received in 2007. The Government was quick to recognise that the gap that had emerged between revenues and expenditure was not sustainable and this is why we have taken such significant measures to restore order to the public finances over the past two years. Starting in July 2008, a series of revenue-raising and expenditure-reducing measures designed to yield about 5% of GDP in 2009 were introduced. Budget 2010 introduced further measures, virtually all on the expenditure side, amounting to another 2.5% of GDP. None of the measures introduced was done lightly but they were necessary in view of the wide gap that had emerged between our revenues and our expenditure and our commitment to restore order to the public finances by reducing the general Government deficit to under 3% of GDP by 2014.

Recent international developments only highlight to us the importance of continuing along the path of fiscal consolidation in taking further firm and decisive action to tackle the challenges our economy faces. This is particularly true in our public finances. Work is already under way to prepare the budget for 2011 and the Government is determined to take the necessary steps to ensure we restore stability in our public finances and, in so doing, place our economy in a position to return to strong and sustainable growth, which will be of benefit to all.

At budget time we suggested that the HICP would fall by 1.25% cent this year, with the CPI falling by slightly less. Developments to date this year support this analysis. Lower costs boost competitiveness and a fall in prices and pay will also bring about improvements in Ireland's competitiveness. This is a positive development and should be welcomed.

The European Commission expects that unit labour costs in Ireland will have fallen by about 9.5% between 2009 and 2011. This compares with an anticipated rise of 3.5% in the euro area over the same period. The European Commission expects that unit labour costs in Ireland will have fallen by about 9.5% between 2009 and 2011. This compares to an anticipated rise of 3.5 % in the euro area over the same period. Therefore, economic competitiveness is improving.

The Council opinion on Ireland's stability programme acknowledges the significant steps the Government has taken to restore stability to the public finances which have been widely applauded abroad. It recognises that we have succeeded in limiting the deficit on the public finances in the context of a global economic and financial crisis and a very difficult economic environment, and that this is an appropriate course for Ireland. The Council opinion endorses the medium-term budgetary plans which we announced with a view to reducing the deficit on the public finances to below 3% of GDP by the end of 2014. The opinion also points out that we need also to continue our efforts to restore international competitiveness, paying particular attention to wages and costs. We are fully aware of this. The Council opinion refers to the important work of the Commission on Taxation and the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes in identifying policy options in the taxation and expenditure areas respectively. These reports will continue to inform our decision making.

The recently announced national pensions framework is also seen as an important component in the development of pension reforms which meet changing needs and can contribute to long-term improvement in the quality of the public finances.

In December 2009, the ECOFIN Council adopted a revised recommendation to Ireland. The Council concluded that Ireland had taken effective action with regard to the earlier recommendation of April 2009. However, due to the worsening of the economic downturn and the scale of the challenges facing Ireland the Council decided to extend the deadline for correction by a year, to 2014. This revised recommendation takes a reasonable, fair and balanced approach. It endorses the measures taken and proposed by the Government and acknowledges that the deterioration of the deficit in 2009 was primarily due to a worse than anticipated downturn. I very much welcome the views of Commissioner Olli Rehn who has confirmed that the correct fiscal target for the Government this year is the figure of €3 billion, contained in the Stability and Growth Pact. As members of the committee are aware, some commentators suggested that some higher unspecified figure would be required of Ireland. The Commissioner has clearly disabused commentators of this idea. The figures in the Stability and Growth Pact are viewed as appropriate for Ireland in the context of the formulation of the budget for 2011. It is important that we understand that is the result of steps taken by the Government to date and the considerable confidence the Commission has in the Irish people, their capacity to pilot a way through these difficulties and their ability to date to hold to their word in the implementation of such a programme.

Deputies will be aware there is a broad understanding that economic governance within the euro area needs to be improved. The Commission recently issued a communication on reinforcing economic policy co-ordination, and the President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, established a task force to look more closely at reform and consider many of the Commission's proposals. The task force, of which I am a member, has met twice already and is examining a number of issues, including a crisis resolution mechanism for the euro area, addressing macroeconomic imbalances, reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact and enhanced budgetary co-ordination.

Last week, the European Council received an interim report and a final report will be made to it in October. The interim report focuses on strengthening both the Stability and Growth Pact and the monitoring of debt levels and overall sustainability, and ensuring strong national budgetary frameworks, quality of statistical data and increased surveillance of competitiveness developments and imbalances. There is a proposal also that member states would present their stability and convergence programmes for the following year to the Commission in the preceding spring. This would confirm that budgetary orientations, in the aggregate, are in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The interim report is just another step in the process, still at a discussion stage, towards deciding on definitive orientations which will enhance economic governance in the euro area. We have no reason to fear such a process. It seeks to ensure that Europe as a whole is on the right path and pulling in the same direction. It is not intended as a sneak preview of the budget nor a usurpation of the rightful prerogatives of Dáil Éireann. The Dáil will be included in the process as the SGP will be presented to it, as currently happens. This process should be seen as helpful, friendly advice from friends, not as a busybody or interfering mechanism.

I turn to the particular Votes before the committee. I present the Estimate for Vote 6 — the Office of the Minister for Finance, which provides for both the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department of Finance. The gross estimate for Vote 6 amounts to some €77 million, a marginal increase of less than €1 million on the 2009 outturn. The net estimate is €70.2 million, an increase of some €5 million on the 2009 outturn. The net increase is accounted for by efficiencies achieved on the administrative budget of €3 million. This arose primarily in the area of pay, reflecting the reduction in pay rates introduced in budget 2010 together with the various schemes such as the incentivised scheme for early retirement, the shorter working year scheme, etc. The reduction also reflects ongoing savings arising from the efficiencies sought by the Government. Offsetting this were new, once-off funding requirements in regard to the banking Inquiry of €2 million; increased funding requirements on the Peace-INTERREG programmes of some €3 million, as new programmes gain momentum; and a reduction of more than €4 million in appropriations-in-aid arising primarily from reduced reimbursements from the European Union in respect of our funding of the Peace-INTERREG programmes. These reimbursements are linked to our prior year funding on these programmes and the level of funding in 2009 was substantially reduced as certain programmes reached a natural conclusion.

The largest single area of programme expenditure in the current year is provided on the charitable lotteries programme under the budget, taxation and economic heading, at €9 million. This subhead was established in 1997 and payments are made from it to supplement the income of certain private charitable lotteries whose lottery products are in direct competition with comparable national lottery products.

Recent events in the economy and financial sector have put huge pressure on the resources of the Department and we must consider, on an ongoing basis, how the Department should respond to the lessons of that period. The Department's staff are hugely committed individuals who want to deliver best outcomes for the country. An examination of how the Department goes about its work is worth considering. The purpose of such a review would be to benchmark the Department against international standards and do whatever redesign is necessary to achieve the best possible outcomes, taking into account the lessons of the past.

Regarding Vote 9 — Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the net Estimate for the office, at €339.051 million, is down 14% on the 2009 outturn and reflects Government decisions related to overall reduction in spending. The 14% nominal reduction must be seen in the context of the impact of the pay adjustments and for that the real cut to the Revenue Vote is in the region of 9%. A significant element of this reduction arises in the area of IT-related expenditure where the estimate is down in the region of 27% in regard to last year's outturn. Very significant sums of money have been invested over the past number of years and this year in the Revenue information technology infrastructure. This investment, as well as providing better service for the taxpaying public, has been a major driver of productivity growth in Revenue assisting it in providing an excellent service through times of huge growth in business volumes without a commensurate increase in resources. It will also assist Revenue to continue to deliver in these more straitened times.

Revenue, through its frontier management activities, continues to respond to the threat of contraband and drugs smuggling by promoting co-operation and exchanging intelligence with relevant national and international law enforcement agencies and strengthening its risk assessment, targeting and profiling frameworks. In late 2009, Revenue received delivery of an additional customs cutter and a second mobile X-ray scanner, doubling its capacity to use cutting edge technology in the fight against drugs and contraband for 2010 and onwards. On the staffing front, mindful of the need to ensure that the Revenue Commissioners are properly staffed for the very important work of collecting taxes, I recently approved the filling of up to 200 posts in that office through a combination of redeployment, selective recruitment and promotion measures. The process of the filling of these posts is already in train.

I turn to Vote 16 — Public Appointments Service. The budget of PAS has been cut by 40% since the end of 2008 to reflect the new hiring situation. During 2009, PAS achieved a 29% reduction in staff numbers, from 153 to 109, through the temporary transfer of resources to other Departments and offices with sanctioned vacancies and the non-filling of posts. The service has been in discussions with my Department on the operation of the proposed redeployment scheme for the public service. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that public service resources are fully engaged and that all essential services are adequately maintained.

Regarding the other Votes in the finance group, members of the committee have been provided with background briefing by my Department on all of the Estimates presented today for their approval. I thank the committee for its attention and commend the Estimates to the members. I will be glad to supply any further information or clarification they may request.

I welcome the Minister and the officials from the Department of Finance. The two main areas in the voted expenditures and annual output statements are superannuation and retired allowances in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Those two areas account for approximately 86% of expenditure. The expenditure for superannuation and retired allowances has increased by 24%. Will the Minister indicate the number of the people who retired in 2009 and the number who are expected to retire in 2010 and in 2011? Will he indicate the level of ex gratia lump sum payments paid to those individuals on retirement?

I note from the Minister's presentation that apart from the reduction in wages, there was a 9% reduction in expenditure. In terms of the 14% reduction in expenditure in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, will he indicate the staff reduction involved and to what areas that reduction relates? Salary, wages and allowances account for the largest decrease in expenditure. What is the reduction in the number of staff and what areas of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners are affected by that reduction?

I want to relate the annual output statement and the summary statement for the Department of Finance to the ECOFIN statement, namely, the Council opinion dated 22 April 2010. The higher level goals in the annual output statement are to formulate appropriate and sustainable economic and taxation policies which support Government objectives. The Minister said that the Council opinion endorses the medium-term budgetary plans which have been announced with a view to reducing the deficit, yet the ECOFIN opinion states that the medium-term budgetary framework has some weaknesses. I would like the Minister to address some of those weaknesses. The ECOFIN opinion specifically refers to those in the overall summary. It states that projections for 2011 onwards are optimistic in nature and that it would like to see a level of stress-testing, particularly in the area of revenue. I would like the Minister to elaborate on whether such measures are being taken? The opinion states that quantitative targets for the other years seem to be indicative in nature. Furthermore, it states it is very much flexible in terms of the way the budgetary envelopes can be spent and, effectively, it would like to see it being more secure. Furthermore, it makes specific reference to the issue of a formal mechanism, which we discussed during finance Question Time last week. It states that a formal mechanism for reviewing budgetary plans at higher than annual frequency in order to limit the risk of deviating from the targets does not appear to be in place. I would like the Minister to comment on that.

At what type of mechanism is the Deputy hinting?

I am hinting at the independent oversight mechanism. That is one indication. The Minister said there is a proposal that member states will present their stability and convergence programmes for the following year to the Commission in the preceding spring and that it will not have any impact in terms of the budgetary process. Will that programme be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas prior to the Minister presenting it to the Commission? From an accountability viewpoint, it is important that Members of these Houses would have an opportunity to discuss what the Minister proposes to put forward in the convergence programmes in the Dáil and the Seanad. That would provide a level of consistency in linking up with the European process.

The key elements of the Council opinion are stress-testing measures with a broad consolidation strategy. The opinion notes the optimistic nature in terms of the growth in GDP in the following years. It is seeking what we are seeking from the banks. In this respect, will the Government introduce stress-test measures? There is the issue of whether we have an ageing population and the matter of pension reform measures. The opinion refers to adherence and monitoring. It also refers to improving compliance with the data requirements of the code of conduct. It seeks more concrete data in terms of the outer years and asks the Minister how he will deal with that.

The other issue coming through consistently in the opinion is competitiveness. There has been an increase in competitiveness driven in many cases by the recession because we have deflation. The Council is seeking more concrete measures in terms of human capital and research and development. We as a party have put forward the proposal that the Government should bring forward a 5% cut in Government administered regulated costs. The National Competitiveness Council, in its most recent report, stated that if competitiveness is driven purely by recession that we must examine areas in terms of productivity growth, innovation, next generation broadband and improving the grid, which is very much in line with the proposals we have put forward in our NewERA document. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this area.

The Minister said he would cut expenditure by €3 billion in a budget correction in 2011 and that it would comprise €1 billion in capital and €2 billion in tax and expenditure. Will he give a breakdown of the €2 billion cut in expenditure in taxation, particularly the breakdown between those two areas. It is vital that we have an indication of what is proposed in that respect.

I welcome the annual output statements. I would like the Minister to deal with superannuation allowances in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and to comment on the message contained in the European Commission's Council opinion dated 22 April 2010, to which the Minister did not as such refer in his opening statement

It was proposed that spokespersons would make opening statements. Does Deputy Bruton wish to make an opening statement now or would she prefer to do so after the Minister replies to those questions?

I would prefer to hear the answers first.

On the question of Revenue staff reductions, the average number of staff at the Revenue Commissioners in 2009 was 6,430 and the average number for 2010 was 6,200. Salaries will decrease by €31 million in 2010 from 2009. If the Deputy wants a breakdown of that, as between pay and numbers, which is what I gather he is seeking, €20 million of that results from the pay reduction and €11 million from numbers reductions.

There has been a staff reduction of 130.

On average, if one computes an average figure for each year. On any one day the figures are variable. We have given the anticipated average figure for 2010.

We are talking about a 4% reduction in numbers. In what areas?

I would like to finish my reply before I take supplementary questions.

The next issue was the number of retirements, of which there were 2,100 in 2009. About 800 retired under the incentivised scheme of early retirement. The projected number for 2010 is about 1,200. The estimated numbers of Civil Service pensioners at the end of 2009 and 2010 are 18,000 and 18,090, respectively, which represents a net increase of about 840, taking the numbers of deaths into account. The estimated numbers for 2011 and 2012 are 910 and 970, respectively. The estimated average lump sum is €80,000 in crude terms.

There was a reduction of 230 in the number employed in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. In what areas were there reductions? It is my understanding that the Minister has indicated that an additional 200 staff will be employed by the Revenue Commissioners.

While my officials are seeking the information sought, I will deal with the other points raised by the Deputy. He asked a number of questions about the ECOFIN communication of 22 April. He also asked about the mechanism used to ensure independent oversight. In that regard, I am considering the possible establishment of a fiscal and economic council. In the context of the recent publication of the preliminary scoping reports on the causes of Ireland's banking crisis, the Government has asked the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its views on the case to be made for having independent institutional sources for economic and fiscal projections. I would welcome the committee's views on the principle of having such a council and the role and functions such a body would have in Ireland, given the size of the economy and the fact that we already receive comment and independent advice from the ESRI, the Central Bank the European Commission. A number of states have such bodies, but their roles and functions can differ somewhat. Some are purely advisory, others review forecasts and key economic assumptions underlying budgetary policy, while others provide forecasts and the macroeconomic basis for budgetary policy. Their composition can also vary, with academics being predominant in some, while there is a broader mix of expertise available in others. The view of other European states with fiscal and economic councils is that having a preponderance of academics on such bodies can lead to very serious problems.

There are developments at EU level in respect of the need to strengthen overall economic and budgetary surveillance in order that all member states will be in a better position if faced with events such as those which we have all experienced in recent years. I have outlined the work of the task force and that being done by President Van Rompuy. Stress testing in economies is even more difficult than stress testing in banks. We are always open to suggestions, but part of the stress testing would involve the establishment of a council along the lines I have mentioned. Stress testing in this context is not as mechanical an exercise as stress testing in a bank. We are stress testing a national economy, with all the inherent uncertainties and contingencies that apply to such a test. Clearly, Dáil Éireann will have to be involved step by step in any budgetary procedures used, either on foot of Mr. Van Rompuy's task force or an independent decision.

I think he is a professor.

I think so. He is a former Belgian Prime Minister, which is why he is being given this task. I understand he did his thesis at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, which I suppose is fairly academic.

He is a theologian as well as an economist. God save us.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher, not a theologian.

I think he was both. On anything proposed by the task force, we will have to protect the position of Dáil Éireann as the national Parliament. Were the Government to make an independent decision to establish an economic council, procedures would have to be established for liaison between the council and Dáil Éireann. I would be open to suggestions in that regard.

Am I right in saying that before the stability and convergence programme for the following year is submitted by the Government, it will be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas for debate? Is the Minister satisfied that the growth patterns for the period 2011 to 2014 are realistic? Has the Department of Finance looked at a lower GDP growth rate and the consequences of this? Instead of a figure of 3.3% for 2011, have it looked at a rate of 2%? The ECOFIN opinion states the marked cyclical contribution to consolidation in the outer years foreseen in the programme is consistent with its favourable scenario——

I have not yet come to that matter. I still have to answer other questions.

The extent to which the Department engages in sensitivity analysis is dealt with in paragraph C12 of the 2010 budget document. In order to consider the sensitivities of the public finances to a different growth trajectory, the ESRI's macro-economic model was used to simulate a situation where the rate of output growth differed by a figure of 1% from the baseline, arising from changes in interest rates or world demand. The impact is set out at paragraphs C12 and C13 of the budget document for 2010. There is a range of figures on what would happen if there was a 1% change in the growth rate owing to changes in interest rates or world demand. That stress testing takes place in the Department.

I have dealt with the position of Dáil Éireann in the budgetary process. Specific structural issues were raised by the Commission which was concerned about the medium-term projections. On the projections for 2011, as I have pointed out, it has agreed the figure of €3 billion. Therefore, it is clear its position is one of "wait and see" to make a finer judgment on what will happen in 2012 and 2013. In current world circumstances it would be very difficult to predict economic growth levels in 2012 and 2013. It is reasonable for us to make the case that if and when the necessary adjustments are made, they will improve our competitiveness and, therefore, boost our exports which entitles us to factor in growth in the projections for these years. That is in line with independent economic commentary in the State. That is the basis of our projections and argument on the issue. What the commission is asking, in effect, is: "What if the growth rates do not materialise in these years?" This is contrary to the economic advice we have received, as well as the view of the Department of Finance. That said, it is understandable the Commission wishes to emphasise that there is a risk in looking at the Stability and Growth Pact submission. It is interesting to note that, despite the views expressed in the documentation presented in April, the Commission has, nevertheless, let the figure of €3 billion stand for next year.

As regards the Deputy's question on our aging population, the main point on pension reform is that the level of longer term sustainability has to be improved through further pension reform measures. The Government has adopted the basic strategy set out in the framework. As part of this, pension arrangements for new entrants are being devised by the Government. We are in consultations with the social partners and following their conclusion, we will introduce legislation to address these issues. We will also examine certain other issues.

On the pension reform measures mentioned, does the Minister propose to introduce them as part of the budget for 2011? It appears from reading the ECOFIN opinion that the Council has serious concerns about the sensitivities analysis the Minister is using in the budgetary process. It makes five points in its assessment and recommendations, the first of which concerns the sensitivities analysis, while the concerns pensions reform in terms of our aging population. The third concerns the strengthening, in terms of enforcement, of the medium-term budgetary framework, which is obviously a reference to the review process. There is also the issue of compliance with the data requirements of the code of conduct.

I have made reference to the fact that the Council speaks about the marked cyclical contribution to fiscal consolidation in the outer years first seen in the programme consistent with its favouring macro scenarios. It states this implies that the efforts to correct the position fall short. Essentially, this is very much in line with what the Regling-Watson report touched on, namely, the issue of having six cyclical budgets. How does the Minister propose to address this issue? What emerges clearly from the Council opinion is that ECOFIN believes the budgetary process for 2011 and the way the Minister has come up with the figures are not sufficiently secure or strong enough. The opinion certainly does not indicate that ECOFIN is satisfied with the budgetary mechanisms in place. It is all very well saying this is contrary to independent advice and the view of the Department of Finance. The fact is we have a Council opinion stating it has concerns about the budgetary process in Ireland. How does the Minister expect to overcome this? I suspect it will become part of the stability and convergence programmes process. Is the Minister satisfied the level of growth he is projecting for the period 2011 to 2014 can be achieved?

Let us get real. First, the vast majority of member states were given exactly the same formula in the Council opinion. If we do not have economic growth, we shall not be able to engage in fiscal consolidation. Virtually every European state accepts this. We can quote from opinions given. I have to listen to what other Ministers are saying and the idea that one can execute fiscal consolidation without economic growth is unreal.

That is not what I asked the Minister.

I am answering the Deputy's question. I am saying this opinion has been issued to every member state. I hope the public can be reassured that when the Minister goes to Brussels, he does not just say, in effect, "Yes, I agree with every line of the opinion." No other finance Minister I have met does so either. The reality is that one cannot conduct fiscal consolidation without economic growth. The well known distinction in economics between structural and cyclical deficits rests on that proposition and has been at the heart of a great deal of economic analysis, not alone leading up the budget for this year, but also the economic analysis which preceded the emergency budget presented in April 2009. There is a clear distinction. I do not believe the Regling-Watson report should be mobilised yet again into a cul-de-sac because they made it very clear, so far as their response to the crisis containment measures is concerned, that the Government was on the right path and awaiting international recovery, to quote their words, and putting the economy in position. That is the policy of the Government.

I accept the point the Deputy makes that the ECOFIN opinion questions whether the assumed growth rates will materialise. It can do this with every other state also, but we shall all be in a very difficult boat if there is no economic growth in Europe in the next three years. That is the reality.

The Minister is stating the obvious, that there must be growth to allow the economy to recover. How do we ensure growth? There are more than 440,000 people on the live register. It is a question of adopting an overall jobs strategy — I know there has been an announcement in this regard within the last few days — to get people back to work. What is the Minister's actual jobs strategy?

Let us be very clear on the matter of a jobs strategy. The observations of Lord Myners who served as a Minister in the outgoing Labour Party Government in the United Kingdom deserve repetition. He said governments did not create jobs, but rather the conditions in which jobs were created. His most bitter regret was that his colleagues in the Labour Party had failed to observe this rule in recent years in the United Kingdom. We shall see the consequences of this later this week when the budget is introduced in the United Kingdom.

At the heart of the Government's concern about the economy is a very precise jobs strategy. However, there cannot be a jobs strategy without a functioning banking system, control of the public finances or in the absence of competitiveness. There is a wide range of other supports, supply side measure and direct supports which governments must put in place to stimulate the creation of jobs. I do not take away from any of these incremental measures, but unless the fundamental conditions are right, there cannot be a jobs strategy. Competitiveness lies at the heart of a successful jobs strategy for Ireland. It is clear from the data I outlined to the committee that there has been considerable progress made in, for example, Irish wage rate competitiveness which was totally out of line with the position in rest of the eurozone by 2007, as highlighted in the Regling-Watson report.

I am sure the Minister will agree that Lord Myners would, therefore, praise the most recent Labour Party Minister for Finance. By the time he left office, the number of jobs created was increasing at the rate of 1,000 a week, almost exclusively in the private sector. I can take the Minister's comments as praise for the Labour Party's performance in government. Unfortunately, the benefit of this performance was squandered on Fianna Fáil's return to power by way of a crazy property bubble and the decentralisation proposal for the public service. We are still living with the consequences. If the Minister is trying to be fair, he needs to cast his mind back to when the economy was rebuilt in the early 1990s and measures were taken which resulted in growth in employment of 1,000 jobs a week, as compared to a current rate of job losses of 6,000 a month and rising. That is, unfortunately, the legacy of this appalling Fianna Fáil Party-led Administration which delivered the collapse of the banks and a financial nightmare. The worst affected are small and medium enterprises and more than 400,000 individuals who are now unemployed.

In late 2008, when Fianna Fáil began to recognise the crisis and introduced various emergency budgets and adjustments, many independent economists and a number of officials from the Department identified a number of measures which would be necessary to assist the country. In the absence of control of monetary policy, the first adjustment was to be a competitive wage devaluation. The Minister suggests wages have fallen by 9.5% compared to an average increase in wages in the rest of Europe of 3.5%. In effect, therefore, there has been a competitive wage devaluation of, on average, 13% in the economy. At the time many economists bemoaned the fact that the absence of national control of monetary policy meant Ireland could not devalue. In recent times the euro has been effectively devalued.

As regards difficulties being experienced on the island of Ireland, there is widespread anticipation that the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise VAT rates in today's budget. It is possible he has made an announcement to this effect already.

These three developments were considered essential. The recent competitive wage devaluation has been extraordinary in historical terms in anyone's estimation. My question on this issue relates to the Minister's participation in the Council of Ministers. Is he concerned that the approach being taken by Germany to deflate the eurozone as much as possible in a stringent and tough manner will return us to the policies of 1937 when governments returned to pre-1932 policies which resulted in the Great Depression?

We have an extraordinary confluence of events in Ireland. If current policy fails to produce jobs growth, as it is singularly failing to do given that the number of job losses massively exceeds the number of job gains, the Minister and his party will have driven the economy into a cul-de-sac, a downward fiscal cycle or, to use the words of Ben Bernanke, a "death spiral". Is the Minister concerned that his policies are sufficiently flexible to move away from the ideological right in which he appears to be gripped towards a balanced programme which would give members of the public the confidence to spend and enable the business community to borrow and start working again?

Deflation, on its own, will not produce growth. In the light of the 13% wage cut to which the Minister refers, he has yet to make a convincing case as to how his programme of deflation — this downward fiscal cycle or death spiral of deflation——

Did the Deputy say "death" or "debt"?

It is both, but those are the Minister's words, not mine. The Minister still has not explained it.

No, I have asked the Deputy to indicate whether it is a "death cycle" or "debt cycle".

The term used by Ben Bernanke was "death spiral", but if the Minister wishes to use the term "debt cycle", he is perfectly welcome to do so.

This time last year the McCarthy report on public service cuts was published. It clearly identified large numbers of quangos which it suggested could be trimmed, merged or eliminated. The Department is in charge of economic policy. Have there been developments in this regard? We heard last week that the consumer advice services of the Financial Regulator would be incorporated with the National Consumer Agency which will be merged with the Competition Authority. I suggested to the Minister that while the number of employees in each of the agencies in question is small, the merger appears to be proceeding in accordance with the HSE model, in other words, all the existing bodies are being brought together and not only are staff numbers not being reduced, but the number of staff in the three existing bodies will be maintained and extra staff will be required by the new body. As a result, we will have the HSE example on a small scale. I ask the Minister to comment.

On the specific proposals to which the Minister alluded, he referred to benchmarking the Department of Finance against best international standards. Neither the Government nor the Department has yet had an opportunity to present any accountability or accounting data in relation to how the Department handled the crisis. Such accounting is largely absent from the Honohan and Regling-Watson reports, except to the extent that both describe the crisis management in the period after the guarantee as "coping". The reports are detailed in that they identify, for instance, serious advice from Merrill Lynch that the guarantee provided would result in a large debt overhang.

Given that we are considering the Estimates for 2010 halfway through the financial year, it is extremely difficult to make any sense of them. In terms of benchmarking and examining the role of the Department, will the Minister ask whether in March 2008 the Department noticed that the share price of Anglo Irish Bank had collapsed and that the bank which had an extraordinary growth model was in serious difficulties as a result? We still do not have an answer to whether it was the responsibility of the Minister or his Department. Were departmental officials warning him that the bank, with its extraordinary growth model but which had seen its share price collapse, was a goner? Will he give his officials permission to discuss at the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service how the Department's banking policy and strategy was managed in the two years in the run-up to the State guarantee in 2008?

The Minister believes tax receipts in 2010 will amount to approximately €31 billion. Given that we are halfway through the year, is there any evidence his figure is bearing up? Is it €1 billion shy of or above that figure? Knowing this would be helpful in framing the budget. What will be the overall cost of debt payments and outgoings to cover the banking crisis in 2010 and the following year? If €31 billion is the anticipated tax revenue figure but outgoings increase, the people who will be asked to bear another €3 billion in next year's budget could see most of this gobbled up by extra interest payment costs.

The reduction of €54 million, or 14%, in the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners is rather dramatic. It is offset to a degree by the rise of €77 million, or 24%, in superannuation costs, presumably owing to the extra retirements in the service this year. I am concerned there will be a loss of experienced quality personnel from the Revenue Commissioners such as tax inspectors who have an intimate knowledge of businesses and how much they could be expected to pay. For several years the inspector of taxes grade has been slowly but surely replaced by an administrative grade which does not necessarily require the same level of experience. In most other countries such experience is essential in the successful collection of taxes. What is the Minister's approach to keeping existing skill sets in the Revenue Commissioners to ensure targets for tax collection are met?

The Government parties, Fianna Fáil in particular, have not acknowledged or recognised the effect the decentralisation policy, as announced in one fell swoop by the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, of relocating 10,000 civil and public servants to 53 locations across the country has had on the morale, the cohesiveness and efficiency of the services. When the Minister is examining the Department of Finance in his benchmarking exercise, will he also arrange to audit how many half empty and empty offices and leased premises are on the books of Departments as a consequence of this decentralisation policy? From the output statements, it is not easy to ascertain the exact cost of the programme, but I believe it is significant.

I am concerned Germany's fiscal policy will be so deflationary that it will hamper recovery in Ireland, even though the Minister has textbook conditions for recovery such as wage cuts, the devaluing of the euro and a likely rise in the VAT rate in the United Kingdom. One of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Quinn, was faced by similar conditions and, under him, we were gaining 1,000 jobs a month, even 1,000 jobs a week at one point. Unlike him, under the Minister, we are losing 6,000 jobs a month.

The successor of Deputy Quinn as Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, also saw similar exponential rises in the numbers of real jobs created in the economy for the rest of the 1990s. Rather than going back over history, however, it is important to examine where we are in the labour market now. Labour market conditions remain weak. The level of employment is expected to fall by 3.5%, while the overall unemployment rate is forecast to peak close to an average of 13.25% this year.

Will the Minister give us the estimated figure for the number who will emigrate this year?

It must be remembered the economy has far more jobs than when Deputy Quinn disappeared as Minister for Finance. In recent months the pace of increase in unemployment has slowed significantly. Recent data show that the level of unemployment was 12.9% in the first quarter, down from 13.3% in the last quarter of 2009. While I accept it does reflect a decline in the labour force, the position is stabilising.

Deputy Burton referred to deflationary economics, the ideological right and debt cycles. The Irish debt cycle in the context of our eurozone membership is very well set out in the Regling and Watson report on the banking crisis. I am also reminded of it regularly at European meetings. By 2008 Ireland had the highest unit labour costs in any part of the eurozone. They were even higher than those in Greece. Unit labour costs in the public service had exceeded the inflation rate in any other country in the eurozone, including Greece. When we are examining the issue of competitiveness, we must acknowledge the comparative position in other countries. Rather than referring to deflation, debt cycles and making the kind of naked electoral appeal the Labour Party has been making to certain sections of the workforce, it would help if everyone understood why it was necessary to take these measures. It was necessary to take them because we needed to compete with other European countries. Candidly, other European countries view us as freeloaders when we insist on wage increases vastly in excess of the rate of inflation in the eurozone. That is the reality any Minister for Finance would have to face in discussing these problems with other European Ministers, as distinct from trying to cultivate electoral appeal at home.

Having dealt with the contentious matters, I welcome Deputy Burton's reference to the fact that we are in a position of the textbook indicators being there for economic recovery. This is precisely why independent economic establishments and commentators are saying we are poised to benefit from economic recovery and to see economic growth. It is important we acknowledge these points.

Regarding specific questions on the McCarthy report, that report presented a range of options to the Government. To date, more than 40 agencies have been eliminated and there is a need to consider the further elimination of agencies in the context of fiscal consolidation. It is not correct to suggest, for example, that the amalgamation of the consumer agency with the Competition Authority will lead to a larger entity. The purpose of such a merger is to reduce the numbers involved in the various services.

How could the Government do this? It is the HSE model.

In what sense is it the HSE model?

Staff are leaving and the National Consumer Agency, NCA, and the Competition Authority still exist, but they are all to be merged. The numbers involved are small, but it is an interesting little example. Three into one will make four in this case.

The consolidation of the agencies will allow ease of transfer out of the organisations. One of the key objectives secured by the Croke Park agreement is the easier transferability of staff within agencies and across Departments. In this context, there clearly will be scope for a reduction in numbers in any merged agency or entity. It is not correct to state the number of staff who will travel with a new agency is an absolute given. What proper public service management requires is for staff numbers to be kept under constant review. As everyone will accept, an embargo is necessarily a crude implement, since gaps emerge in particular areas that must be filled while other gaps do not need to be filled. With easier transferability across the public service, it will be possible to make the necessary reductions in numbers and to ensure agencies reduce their numbers.

The Department of Finance will be benchmarked using appropriate comparisons with Departments and Ministries of finance in other countries. I have decided in principle that we must do this as a Department. It will proceed.

Regarding the question on the type of guarantee given in September 2008, I have made clear that I am willing to publish all of the relevant papers and to answer to the committee in this respect. A fair conclusion can be arrived at on the type of advice the Government received in that context. I understand why Professor Honohan referred to the particular advice in the report, but he was examining it in the context of the Central Bank and the regulator's work, not the Department's work. The final advice from the particular adviser was that the guarantee to Anglo Irish Bank should have been more extensive and wider ranging than it was in respect of other banks and that it should have included subordinated debt. I am not sure anyone would understand this advice in retrospect, but that matter is for another day.

Concerning the important question on tax receipts and whether this year's figures are bearing up, my view on this at the end of May was that it was too early to be definitive but that the year's figures to date were encouraging. A more definitive view can be made after the late June return, but tax receipts every year have the crucial variable of November's income tax returns. The general trend visible at the end of May showed a small shortfall in income tax and a small increase in VAT in the year to date, but the VAT increase was not sufficient to eliminate the income tax shortfall entirely. Shortfalls represent a small percentage of the total tax receipts. Therefore, my Department is confident that its forecast to date has stood up, but much remains to happen during the rest of the year. There is no evidence to suggest there will be any substantial slippage in this year's tax projections.

Deputy Burton asked about debt interest costs. In 2009, these amounted to €2.5 billion. In 2010, they amount to €4.5 billion. In 2011 and 2012, they will amount to €5.75 billion and €6.5 billion, respectively. By 2014, interest costs are forecast to amount to approximately 20% of likely tax revenue. The position is serious, although not quite as serious as Deputy Burton portrayed it.

I share the Deputy's concern that we should not lose quality personnel in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. This is one of the reasons for the necessary sanction issued to the chairman in respect of the recruitment of certain key staff and promotions. I referred to this matter in my opening statement. The sanction was to ensure that, where any skill shortage emerges, the chairman and Commissioners are in a position to deal with the issue.

Regarding the decentralisation policy and its impact on the morale of the public service, it is fair to say that, since my appointment as Minister, there has been a considerable slowing down of the decentralisation programme. I have not found, and it has not been suggested to me, that the policy has had an impact on the morale of the public service. The decentralisation option has been popular with many categories of public servant and has seen a considerable level of take-up, but the programme cannot be justified on an extensive basis in the current economic climate.

I have a supplementary question on wage costs. The Minister identified the core problem as being public service wages.

No, I did not. I simply indicated that public service rates were the most out of line with eurozone inflation rates. Private rates were also out of line, but not to the same extent.

Just let me ask the question.

The Minister used the term "freeloaders". Is he implying that the public servants cajoled by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, into seeking nice deals in the type of social partnership the Deputy developed were all "freeloaders"? Were they short-sighted, given the then Taoiseach's comments to the effect that anyone who talked down the economy should have committed suicide? Were public servants cajoled into being "freeloaders" or would the Minister even use that term in respect of public servants?

Excuse me, I did not use——

Most public servants are not "freeloaders".

Again, this is the type of nonsense in which the Deputy's party engages.

The Minister used the term "freeloaders".

I did not use it in the context of public servants. I used it——

Then who are the "freeloaders"?

I was clear in what I stated.

I thought the banks and developers freeloaded a lot.

Will the Deputy allow the Minister to reply, please?

I was clearly referring to the perception in Europe about the behaviour of Ireland generally in respect of the eurozone. If we paid ourselves wage rates way in excess of inflation rates in the eurozone, we were effectively freeloading on the euro. It was not specifically targeted at any group or the processes that led to increases for those groups. It is a collective criticism of ourselves by the European authorities that I have heard in European circles. This was the clear sense and direction of what I told the committee. The Deputy may choose to misinterpret it for her political purposes, but it is an objective fact that Irish wage rates were significantly out of line with inflation rates in the eurozone. This was one of the crucial findings of the Regling and Watson report. We can decide to read and learn lessons from it or read it and then engage in political muck raking. This is the choice we face as a country.

As far as wage rates are concerned, they were out of line with inflation rates throughout the eurozone. Some of this may have been justified in terms of catching up for particular categories of worker aligning their salaries with European norms in light of the increased productivity of the country, but some of it was clearly out of line with the rates. This was one of the reasons we entered into a difficult position economically. It is also why the crucial decision taken by the Government to moderate and, in certain cases, reduce wage rates was essential. It was not some sort of process of def cycle, as Deputy Burton referred to it, or deflation. It was essential and in the best interests of this economy. The Government took those steps, which is one of the reasons we are now entering economic recovery. We would not be entering economic recovery had we pursued any other strategy in respect of our wage growth.

Can I ask the Minister with regard to——

One minute please. I happen to be the Chairman.

I wish to put a supplementary question.

I wish to put a question to the committee. We must finish at 12.30 p.m. I propose we move now to a general discussion on each of the Estimates as outlined in the agreed programme.

I wish to put a supplementary question.

No. Deputies may ask questions on each of the Votes as we go through them.

I have four quick questions overall.

We understood we would be allowed back in.

A question may be asked on the first Vote, that is, Vote 6 — Office of the Minister for Finance.

With due respect, our understanding was that we could come back in.

We had agreed that we would follow the programme put forward. That has not been totally adhered to but half an hour remains. I wish to give other Members an opportunity to contribute. Contributions must be confined to each particular Vote and Deputies are not allowed in otherwise because the general discussion is confined to the chairperson. Are there any specific questions on Vote 6 – Office of the Minister for Finance?

Yes. The tables set out on pages 15 and 16 show the costs of the Office of the Minster for Finance are increasing by €5 million from €65 million to €70 million in total. The Minister has just informed us that he will benchmark the Department of Finance against international norms. How does he propose to do this? Who will carry out the process? Will such people be accountable in any way to the finance committee? Is it possible to hear who will carry out these benchmarking exercises? Given that the Minister has just described the previous benchmarking process of his former Taoiseach as some type of freeloading——

There shall be no general discussion, only a specific discussion on the Vote.

I have a question to put. The Minister might be an expert on——

Let us have a question, not a discussion.

I have a question.

I will allow a specific question on Vote 6.

Given the Minister's previous comments on freeloading and benchmarking of wages, is he satisfied that this process of benchmarking is adequate to analyse the appalling disasters which have befallen the Department? Above all, the question remains of what advice was proffered to the Minister and his two predecessors at the time when the economy went off track. The Minister referred to how his predecessor Mr. McCreevy had followed Deputy Ruairí Quinn's policies for two years or so. Then the breaks——

To what particular section of the Vote is the Deputy referring?

I refer to the tables set out on pages 15 and 16. They set out schedules of expenditure. There is also a reference in the Estimate to a provision of €1 million for transforming the public service and innovation processes. Will the Minister answer this question as well? It is amazing that at a time of great difficulty, the allocation for the Secret Service is increasing by 66%. Perhaps the Minister knows something we do not.

That falls under another Vote.

Is the Minister watching all the demonstrations?

We must stick to Vote 6 for the moment.

It is a small vote. Will the Minister throw in that as well?

That is a different Vote.

Has the Minister secret agents watching all the——

I have no secret agents. I am not the Minister responsible for the activities that take place on foot of that Vote. I refer to the review of the Department of Finance. I have in mind a review of the Department of Finance by an independent review group comprising a small number of experts with relevant international or domestic experience to evaluate the systems, structures and processes used by the Department with regard to those elements of economic management that are relevant to its role and operations.

The review should be informed by a detailed consideration of the Department's performance in the past ten years, including its response to the development and management of the current crisis and to ensure the lessons of this period of stress would inform the development of the Department in future. In this context, the review will examine how external information and advice, including non-consensual advices, were dealt with by the Department and how they should be dealt with in future.

The review will have due regard to the skills, training and staffing mix required by a modern finance and economic ministry, such that it can fulfil its role with regard to economic risk assessment, policy development, advice and implementation and such that it can maximise and optimise performance in all its areas of operation, communications, transparency and accountability. I seek to ensure for the future that the Department can give the best achievable advice, that it can better assess risks and opportunities in the fiscal economic and financial system and, with regard to the public service, that it can manage its own operations with the highest levels of effectiveness and efficiency. From my own experience, I am aware the Department has good, skilled, capable and competent staff but I seek to ensure they are used to best effect and that the mix of skills is optimised. This review will be carried out expeditiously by individuals who have informed expertise on the role and operation of finance ministries internationally. That is my view on the question raised by Deputy Burton.

Should I deal with the Secret Service Vote now? What is the procedure?

No. I call Deputy Flanagan on Vote 6.

I welcome the Minister and I thank him for being here this morning. The Minster stated in his script that it was worth considering an examination of how the Department goes about its work. Now he has stated that this independent examination of the Department of Finance will take place. Will the Minister advise on how long that examination will take? Does the Minister expect to publish a report publicly? Has the Minister considered——

The Deputy is moving away from the specifics of the Vote.

I am putting a specific question. Has the Minister considered allowing the secondment of staff from finance departments in other EU countries to come in and help with the adoption of best practice by Ireland?

My intention is that those doing the review will include persons from other Ministries of finance not only confined to the European Union, but throughout the world. I refer to the timeframe. The Deputy will appreciate that my consideration of this matter is at a preliminary stage. To put an indicative timescale on it, I foresee this review being completed in a matter of months rather than years.

Will the report be made public?

I assume it will be public but subject to being brought to Government in the first instance.

Where is the OECD review that was carried out and published with such fanfare some time ago? I refer to performance evaluation and management, which most people now agree has been a complete waste of money in the public service. It has yielded nothing more than money for consultants. What are the Minister's views on the position of these processes at the moment? Will they form part of this review?

I understand the OECD review to which the Deputy refers was published by the Department of the Taoiseach some time ago.

It was the major review on the operation of the public service in Ireland.

I call Deputy O'Donnell.

I am considering the Department of Finance not the public service in its entirety.

Will the Minister be using the OECD?

They are free to draw on it.

Will the Minister reply to Deputy Flanagan's questions?

I refer to the recommendations of the task force on public service transformation, such as those related to shared services, being rolled out within various Departments. Will the Minister provide an up-to-date position?

Is the Deputy asking questions about this particular Vote?

Specifically, yes I am.

Will the Deputy be specific, please?

There is a separate policy and public expenditure Vote.

There is a provision in my Estimate of approximately €1 million for that purpose, although it is a cross-public service initiative. It is not restricted to the Department of Finance.

Is the Minister referring to the €1 million?

A sum of €1 million has been allocated.

We are dealing with Vote 6.

This relates to subhead 14 of Vote 6.

Deputies should refer to specific subheads and put questions on those if they so with. There should not be a general discussion.

There is a provision of €2 million to fund the banking inquiry. I presume that includes the preliminary inquiries plus the commission of inquiry. Will the Minister given an indication of what fees have been paid to the individuals who have carried out the work? Reference was made to the review of the workings of the Department of Finance. In the Minister's own words, we had the highest wage inflation with the highest wage costs——

To what is the Deputy referring?

I am talking about the review——

The Deputy is talking about the general subject so we will move on if there is no specific question.

There is a provision of €2 million to fund the banking inquiry. It is perfectly in order.

I have not spoken in a considerable time.

An hour of questions have been asked in a few minutes. The Deputies agreed to a process at the beginning of the meeting.

The Minister indicated we had the highest wages of any European country.

As wage growth.

There is a small bit of revisionism going on here. Fianna Fáil in government did not just inherit the position from a previous Government. How do we have a position where Government policy allowed developments on the basis of unsustainable cyclical taxes, and we are effectively in a position where we became grossly uncompetitive over four or five years? Will that form part of the review?

Questions on the banking inquiry were raised by Deputy Flanagan. Fees with regard to Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson will arise shortly. To date the Department has paid a total of €7,557.71 on the commission of inquiry. Expenditure will arise in connection with legal advice provided to Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson, whose draft report was reviewed by counsel from the perspective of the law of defamation and whether the report might interfere with existing or prospective legal proceedings. That will amount to approximately €15,000.

It is estimated the final cost of the engagement of Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson will come to €120,000. There were no costs to the Department on the preparation of the report by the Governor of the Central Bank. The majority of the expenditure in respect of the provision under this subhead will therefore arise in connection with the commission of investigation. It is expected these costs will be incurred in the second half of 2010 and in 2011. We may have an opportunity to discuss these matters later.

What is the estimate on those costs?

The figure included in the Vote was €2 million. That includes the cost of the scoping exercises. The anticipated provision this year was €2 million and with the reduction is approximately €1.8 million.

Does the Minister have any feeling on what the cost might be next year?

I do not believe, given the six-month time limit that we are seeking to impose on the commission, that it would be in excess of that figure.

How could it be so large compared to the cost of the report from Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson?

The Deputy is continually ignoring the Chairman.

With regard to a commission of inquiry——

The Deputy is always talking about propriety and organisation. If the Deputy listened to herself she would know she is continually interrupting. The Deputy should address her questions through the Chair.

In view of the Department of Finance——

The Chairman's desire to protect the Minister is somewhat indiscreet at times.

This applies to Deputy O'Donnell as well.

The Minister does not require any protection in here at all.

The Minister should deal with the formal questions on the Vote.

Deputy O'Donnell raised two points on the Vote and the questions are in the context of the review of the Department. He asked if those carrying out the review will see if arrangements in the Department safeguard against higher than correct wage inflation and the salaries for which the Department has responsibility. He also asked if the cyclical and elastic character of the revenue base will be a risk to which the Department will have greater regard. I am certain these matters will be examined in the context of the review. They will be examined not with a view to looking backwards but looking forward to prevent repetition.

Would it not be in the interests of transparency to see how this happened?

Deputy O'Donnell——

That is why we are in the current mess.

We have looked back a great deal at how things happened.

There is a procedure for carrying on business in committees which the Deputy does not seem to understand.

I know it only too well.

The Deputy ignores it on purpose.

On the estimate of €1.8 million for the commission of inquiry, I am sure the Minister is aware of the sad history in the Oireachtas of commissions of various shapes and sizes which started with estimates in the range of a couple of million euro. The issue bears inquiry.

In the context of the report from Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson costing €120,000 — which is the Minister's figure — and Professor Honohan carrying out his inquiry from the existing resources of the Central Bank, the €1.8 million seems to be an extraordinary starting figure for the commission. I feel a bunch of lawyers coming on when I see those figures so does this mean we are back to the figures of €2,500 or €3,000 per day for the commission? That is the only way the estimate will be met.

The commission of inquiry route has proven to be far cheaper than the sworn public inquiry method.

I agree but it is not cheap.

That is the first point. We will have the opportunity to discuss the matters later this evening. The figure for the commission of inquiry is indicative of what it costs to have a commission of inquiry do its work in six months. Speed is of the essence if we are to keep costs down. The exposures in cost relate not alone to the establishment and operational costs of the commission but the third party costs that may be claimed from the commission by parties who must make discoveries or seek to obtain representation before it. It is important we focus our minds on terms of reference that narrow the scope of the commission as much as possible to expose the taxpayer to such costs.

When Professor Honohan came before the committee he strongly suggested that his team in the inquiry group left papers ready related to specific inquiries in each financial institution that could be investigated by skilled investigators. He strongly advised to back off on having the commission of inquiry until those inquires were done, perhaps by some of the people on the Central Bank team.

The Minister is effectively indicating that in the provision for the commission of inquiry, he anticipates that bankers and others will seek to have and recover from the commission representation costs. This means the bankers whom we guarantee will bring lawyers with them and charge us, the taxpayers, for the lawyers.

The advice of Professor Honohan should be heeded. We do not want lawyers on a rate of €3,000 per day crawling all over this commission. The Minister should bear in mind that people have correctly pointed to the Murphy inquiry doing a fantastic job but this took three years because a number of third parties to the inquiry insisted on going to the courts to test the levels of co-operation and documentation to be supplied to the inquiry.

The Minister is basically indicating that he anticipates legal eagles being all over this issue, with the guaranteed bankers——

Does the Deputy have a question?

I am not anticipating anything. I have said I will discuss with parties the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry. At a previous meeting of the committee I was asked to raise with the Governor of the Central Bank whether he would discuss these matters with the committee and clarify what he meant. The Deputy seems to be doing all the clarification this morning. I met the Governor yesterday evening and he is willing to discuss with the Deputy, Deputy Morgan and whomever Fine Gael wishes to nominate with the full authority of its leaders, these matters on Friday morning. That is the position of the Governor.

I am not advocating any course of action that would expose the taxpayer in these inquiries. The fact remains that we have two failed institutions highlighted in these reports. I do not have to cover this ground again as it has been discussed by Deputy Burton and others many times in the House and in committee. It is clear that members of the public require conclusive explanations as to how and why all of this happened. We must also examine the position of the general banking sector in that context and in the context of the excessive lending in which certain institutions engaged. However, I am anticipating this evening's discussion.

We will move on to Vote No. 7 — superannuation and retired allowances. Do members have any questions on this Vote?

On superannuation, will the Minister provide a breakdown in respect of the number of people who have opted to take early retirement? Will he also indicate the positions that were held by those who have retired? Can he indicate the consequences of this in the context of future promotions? If the information in that regard is not available, perhaps the Minister could submit it to the committee in written form.

I will arrange for the information to be forwarded to the Deputy. I do not have it to hand at present.

Is it correct that 2,100 people retired in 2009 and that 800 of these took the early retirement incentive scheme? It is projected that 1,200 people will retire under this scheme in 2010. To what do the figures of 17,250 and 18,090 to which the Minister referred relate? Concerns have arisen with regard to the number of people taking the early retirement option.

I provided figures in respect of the current number of pensioners and those who availed of the early retirement scheme. We anticipate that there will be 1,200 retirements this year. In 2011, we anticipate there will be 910 retirements and in 2012, we anticipate 970. That is the projected number of total retirements for the Civil Service. Projections are, of course, complicated by the grace period and by the fact that people have the option to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 65.

The loss of skilled personnel was raised in the context of the Revenue Commissioners. I explained to the Chairman that I had issued a direction to the effect that certain vacancies could be filled where it is believed that a skills shortage has come about as a result of the loss of personnel. In the context of the wider Government bodies, the Deputy's question would be better posed in the context of the particular Departments involved. I have not encountered any particular difficulties within my Department.

How many of the——

Deputy Terence Flanagan is next to contribute.

On subhead D, is the Minister in a position to provide a breakdown in respect of the number of individuals involved?

Approximately 1,200 people have gone this year. The figure for last year was 2,100.

As I understand it, the Minister is required to provide special sanction in respect of appointments, promotions, etc. How many appointments or promotions has he sanctioned and how many has he refused?

There has been a large number of requests for sanction on the establishment side from all Departments and agencies. There were 205 requests, comprising as follows: 35 from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation; ten from the Department of Social and Family Affairs; seven from the Department of Defence; 17 from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism; 32 from the Department of Health and Children; five from the Department of Transport; eight from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; 30 from the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; none from the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs; 32 from the Department of Education and Skills; ten from the Department of Justice and Law Reform; 19 from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; and none from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Finance or the Taoiseach. Requests were granted in 147 cases, refused in 25 and 33 decisions are pending. On the total number of posts involved, I could provide the Deputy with the table outlining a breakdown on a Department-by-Department basis.

The Minister can supply that information to us.

The total number of posts sought was 1,667 and the total number sanctioned was 884.

I wish to ask a specific question on a matter of extreme importance to many people. When the organisations which represent teachers held their conferences, the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills announced that she intended to launch an initiative in respect of the problem relating to posts of responsibility in second level schools and the issue of year heads, deputy principals, etc.

We are currently dealing with superannuation and retired allowances.

The question I am about to ask is relevant to the matter under discussion. I ask the Chairman to bear with me for a moment.

Is it applicable to Vote 7?

Yes, and it is also applicable to the Chairman's constituency and to that which I represent.

That is not the point. We are not here to discuss constituency matters.

It is the point.

We are currently discussing superannuation and retired allowances.

I understand that the number of teachers retiring from second level, partly as a result of the age structure that obtains in respect of them, is very large. The Tánaiste seemed to announce some kind of initiative designed with the fact that an unexpectedly large number of teachers who occupy critical positions in secondary schools are intent upon retiring. The managers' associations and the principals of various schools in my constituency, which the Minister also represents, have stated that unless this matter is resolved by the autumn, there is a possibility that chaos could erupt in many schools. Has the Minister reached a view on how the loss of senior second level personnel can be dealt with? Has he received any representations in respect of plugging the gap to which these retirements has given rise? The Tánaiste appeared to make an announcement in respect of this matter at the conferences to which I refer.

No final decision has been made on that matter. Discussions with the Department of Education and Skills in respect of it are ongoing. All teaching posts are filled. However, the moratorium applies in respect of posts of responsibility.

Does the Minister expect there to be an outcome prior to the commencement of the school year in September?

These matters will be discussed with the Department of Education and Science in the weeks ahead. I am not putting a time limit on the discussions that are taking place.

That matter really has nothing to do with Vote 7. If there are no other questions on this Vote, we will proceed to Vote 9 — Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

The Minister is going to supply the committee with information relating to the Departments and agencies — particularly the Office of the Revenue Commissioners — from which personnel are being lost.

The Minister might comment on the 200 new posts.

Also, could the Minister——

I am sorry but we must conclude our meeting and arrange a time to resume because we have not concluded our consideration of all the Votes. We will ask the clerk to the committee to arrange a time for that. It had been proposed that the meeting be adjourned to resume half an hour after the conclusion of the joint committee meeting scheduled to meet this evening at 7 p.m. but that would be dependent on the availability of the Minister. Does the Minister wish to comment?

Does the committee wish to complete its consideration of the Estimate?

We have to agree a time.

If the Minister gave us more information on some of the questions we asked that would likely complete it. What we need are details of the numbers about which the Minister is talking.

He cannot because unfortunately we must vacate the room.

If it would be useful we can assemble the information and give it to the Deputy at that stage.

That would be very helpful.

The committee is adjourned until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 when we will consider the Estimates and Annual Output Statements for the Office of Public Works.

Barr
Roinn