Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Jun 2010

2010 Annual Output Statement — Department of the Taoiseach

The first matter today is the consideration of the Taoiseach's group of Revised Estimates and output statements. The Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates for public services would be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach; Vote 3 — Office of the Attorney General; Vote 4 — Central Statistics Office; Vote 13 — Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and Vote 14 — Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I welcome the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy John Curran, and their officials to the committee. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the output statement for the Taoiseach's group of Votes. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. It suggests the Taoiseach's opening statement should be 15 minutes and if he requires a few more minutes he should use some of Deputy Curran's time as he will probably not need 15 minutes for his. This will be followed by opening statements of the spokespersons of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, who will be allowed 15 minutes each. I invite the Taoiseach to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and welcome the opportunity to appear before the select committee as it considers the 2010 Estimates for Votes 2, 3, 4, 13 and 14.

Vote 2 relates to the Department of the Taoiseach. A total of €28.756 million has been provided in the Estimate for the Department in 2010, a reduction of 12% on the 2009 Estimates allocation and an increase of 18.6% over the outturn for 2009. That increase reflects provision for costs which may arise on the conclusion of the work of the Moriarty tribunal. Similar provision was made in the 2009 Estimate, and the decrease in the comparable 2010 Estimate reflects the overriding imperative of reducing expenditure over the course of the year.

My Department has a demanding brief which we must achieve in the context of significantly fewer resources. This means that we must manage our resources to get the maximum benefit. It also means doing more with less, sharing our resources and expertise, harnessing technology to increase productivity, and getting the best value for money in procuring goods and services. Because of its position at the centre of Government, my Department is involved in many, if not most, aspects of the work of the Government, generally in a supportive and facilitative role, while on certain priority issues the Department takes a lead responsibility. Much of my Department's work supports the activities of other Departments, so that its impact on final outcomes is often indirect and captured in the output of our sister Departments. The outputs to be provided by the Department are, therefore, typically expressed in terms of the management of processes and frameworks which involve close engagement with the work of associated Departments and offices.

During 2009 my Department has made significant steps in achieving greater efficiencies in line with requirements to reduce expenditure, while continuing to provide an efficient and effective service. Overall in 2009, administrative savings of €3.329 million were achieved, representing a 16% saving over the 2009 administrative budget allocation. The use of alternative purchasing channels, such as new central supply contracts and frameworks, enables us to avail of economies of scale and ensures better purchasing power with suppliers, in addition to reducing administrative overheads. Decisions not to procure certain services at all or at a significantly reduced level, as with consultancy and advertising services, negotiation with suppliers and specific initiatives such as energy efficiency programmes, have also had a positive effect.

In discharging its responsibilities, the Department does the following: manages a number of core procedures and mechanisms to support collective decision-making by Government, including the work of the Cabinet as a collective authority; facilitates the flow of information to support decision-making in respect of particular policy priorities through the work of Cabinet committees and their supports at cross-official level; promotes co-ordination and consistency through a number of key cross-departmental networks; engages with key stakeholders in respect of Government-wide issues, such as the social partners; and supports the communication of the policy and decisions of the Government and the Taoiseach to the media and the general public.

Significant savings have been realised in the Department's payroll, with staffing numbers in the Department decreasing by 7%, from 212 to 198 in the course of the year. This too has resulted in a greater focus on achieving greater efficiency through deployment of staff according to key business needs and levels of activity, restructuring workloads and processes and achieving greater productivity through exploiting new technologies and availing of shared service arrangements.

The 2010 Estimate will fund a range of activities to advance the objectives in the Department's strategy statement, reflected in the specific targets set out in the output statement for the Department. The Department supports me and the Government as we progress national priorities, including: promoting our interests in the EU and the wider world; steering economic adjustment in a period of lower growth through engagement with the social partners; achieving balanced development and a caring society; driving the modernisation of the public sector to secure higher levels of performance; and our key priority of securing lasting peace on the island of Ireland.

In the economic context, a central priority for the Government and for my Department is to ensure a coherent and focused approach across all policy areas to stabilising and renewing the economy. Much of the focus in the first part of 2009 was on responding to the crisis conditions that prevailed across the global economy, and recent turbulence in the eurozone is the most vivid demonstration of the necessity for the decisions we made and the effectiveness of the policies we pursued. At the same time, the Department led development and implementation of a cross-Government framework to support a return to sustainable growth by using the crisis to restructure and re-prioritise investment. The latest indicators are consistent with our expectations of a return to economic growth during the course of this year and the European Commission and OECD now project that Ireland's GDP will grow next year at 3% — double the euro area average.

My Department, through the work of the Cabinet committee on economic renewal, which I chair, has supported the implementation of the Government's framework for economic renewal and our jobs strategy. The committee was established to focus to the key policies and programmes necessary to ensure an appropriate and cohesive response to the scale of the challenges facing the economy. This includes overseeing development and implementation of the smart economy framework for sustainable economic renewal and other key Government strategies such as that outlined in the report of the high level group on green enterprise.

One of the four action areas outlined in Building Ireland's Smart Economy is to develop the innovation or ideas component of the economy. The Department has supported the work of the innovation task force, which was established in 2009 to advise the Government on how to transform Ireland into a global innovation hub. The task force consulted widely as part of its deliberations and reported in March. It has set down a wide range of recommendations focused on supporting entrepreneurs and enterprise and developing the system necessary for a sustainable, innovation-led economy.

The Department also played a crucial role in progressing dialogue with the key stakeholders in the economy on the overall direction of policy, principally through the social partnership framework. It led to detailed negotiations with the social partners in early 2009 which culminated in agreement of a framework in January. While it was not possible to achieve a formal agreement at that stage, this process was useful in building understanding with regard to the scale and nature of the problems we faced and the responses required.

One of the most devastating effects of the global economic recession has been the loss of employment for many people. Finding alternative jobs, in sustainable sectors, will be the defining challenge in the coming years. We must ensure that we have the right incentives for employers to create jobs and that people on the live register are supported and incentivised to take up those jobs. A key priority has been to significantly increase job search and training capacity across the system.

As part of the work supporting the Cabinet committee on economic renewal, my Department chairs a cross-departmental senior officials group on the labour market, which seeks to ensure a joined-up approach across the relevant Departments and agencies. This work informed the extensive range of measures introduced in budget 2010. This work also informed my decisions on the restructuring of Departments earlier this year to provide a more effective and streamlined approach in the provision of activation, training and education services, through greater integration of relevant policy and delivery mechanisms.

My Department also plays a role in support of the development of policy in the area of climate change and the green economy. The Cabinet committee on climate change and energy security, which I also chair, provides oversight for the development and implementation of effective policies and measures which meet the energy, environmental and climate change priorities set out in the programme for Government. A major focus during 2009 was developing a shared Government position on the climate change negotiations at EU and international level.

The Department also supports the work of the Cabinet committee on health, which I also chair. The committee's role is to oversee implementation of the health service reform programme and to drive improvements in selected priority service delivery areas. It also has an important role in monitoring the provision of health services in the current financial and industrial relations, IR, environment.

The ongoing support of all Members of the Oireachtas for building and maintaining peace in Northern Ireland remains a cornerstone of the continued progress towards lasting peace and reconciliation. The agreement that was reached at Hillsborough in February provides the basis for the future stability and success of the democratic institutions we have all worked so hard to create and maintain.

The devolution of policing and justice was an essential step to secure peace, stability and security in the North and it consolidates the operation of devolved government and completes the transformation of policing and justice structures there. In recent months the institutions have moved on to focus on the day-to-day issues that concern everyone. These issues include the economy, jobs, health, education, infrastructure, social services, community safety and quality of life.

The next meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council takes place in early July when we will discuss the economic challenges being faced by all parts of this island and the potential for mutual benefit in tackling these challenges in co-operation. We will have opportunity at the plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council in Guernsey tomorrow, to discuss a range of issues that affect the people of these islands including economic and energy issues.

Civil society also has an important part to play and the Government recently facilitated two consultative conferences involving the social partners and other civil society groups from across the island. Participants came from all traditions, including representatives from business, the trade union movement, agriculture and the community and voluntary sector. There were wide ranging discussions on the role of civil society and its capacity to contribute meaningfully to cross-border co-operation. We hope that we will see progress in the coming months on a North-South parliamentary conference. We will continue to work for reconciliation, partnership and to enhance the new relationships that have grown from the peace process.

During the next decade we will have an opportunity to commemorate a series of events that shaped the foundation of this State and the history of the island in a way that acknowledges all the traditions on the island that draw their identity and collective memory from our shared history. I addressed a conference organised by the institute of British-Irish studies in University College Dublin on this theme in May. In the period ahead we will engage in a programme of outreach to all those who are interested in commemorating our history, in all its dimensions, with pride and respect. That will include all of the political parties on the island, as well as leaders of civil society and cultural institutions.

The British Government published the Saville report which inquired into the events of Bloody Sunday on 15 June last. I was honoured to accept a copy of the report from the families and representatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday when I met them on the day after the report was published. The families conveyed their thanks for the support they received from successive Irish Governments and the support they also received from many members of the Oireachtas across all parties. The findings of the report, the reaction of the people of Derry and the brave and honest words of the Prime Minister Mr. Cameron at Westminster, can significantly advance the cause of healing and reconciliation.

We owe it to all of the victims of the Troubles and to our children to continue the great collective endeavour to build a better future for all of the people on this island. While dissidents remain active and dangerous, they will not succeed in their efforts. The people of Ireland voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday Agreement. Support for the political institutions in Northern Ireland has never been stronger and people across the island want to work together to address the problems we all face. The criminal actions by so-called dissidents can cause damage and represent a serious threat to life. However, these individuals are marginal and their destructive agenda is contrary to the expressed will of the Irish people. The Government and the Executive and the police services North and South will continue to work closely together and we will do everything we can to stop those to whom I refer.

Progress continues to be made on advancing the change and transformation agenda for the public service, which remains a key priority for the Government. We are committed to a public service worthy of the best traditions of those who have worked to develop our State and its institutions over the decades. We believe the public interest and the long-term interest of public servants coincide in the creation of a public service of which we can be proud and, equally, one which we can afford, now and into the long-term future.

I chair the Cabinet committee overseeing implementation of the transforming public services, TPS, programme. Work is being progressed across the public service on a whole range of issues, including, for example, the greater use of shared services in areas such as finance and human resources, HR, more efficient public procurement and improving access to public services for citizens, as well as reviewing the capacity of all Departments and major offices. This year, my Department and three others will be reviewed as part of the organisational review programme, ORP. This review, which is being led by a senior official from the Department of Finance, will assess my Department's capacity to meet its challenges in the coming years. The outcome of the review will be published and will be accompanied by a follow-up action plan on the key findings.

The public service modernisation division of the Department, working closely with the Department of Finance, continues to support Government in driving, co-ordinating and monitoring progress on the implementation of the review programme, as well as supporting organisations across the public service in their transformation efforts. Earlier this year, we gave a strengthened emphasis to the direction and leadership of change in the public service. I appointed Deputy Calleary to be Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Finance — in addition to his responsibility for labour affairs — to strengthen the political leadership of the change process under the direction of the Cabinet committee on transforming public services. The Government intends to appoint a public service board shortly. This will include members from outside the public service who possess the appropriate experience and skills and who will assist the board in bringing greater focus and energy to the transformation effort. The board will advise the Government on opportunities and priorities for transformation and efficiency and on the capacity of the service to lead change and deliver a high standard of performance. It will also inform the approach of the Government and public service management to the transformation process during the period ahead.

In the context of the current crisis, it is clear that the pace of reform must be accelerated. A dramatic level of change in the way we do business and in our work practices needs to be achieved and the implementation of the transforming public services programme and the recently ratified public service agreement is highly important in this context. The transforming public services programme provides a blueprint for a much more flexible, integrated and responsive public service. The implementation of the public service agreement will, with the commitment and agreement of management and unions, assist in advancing that programme. The Government is engaging with the public services committee of ICTU to finalise the membership of the implementation body, which has been given a role in driving forward the process of change and ensuring that any difficulties that may be encountered will be resolved in a fair and speedy manner, as provided for in the agreement.

The agreement is a comprehensive agenda for public service transformation and a framework for public service pay determination over the period to 2014 is provided. The agreement also provides confidence and stability in the public service to allow it to meet current and future challenges. This will result in significantly enhanced public services and a more cost-effective and better integrated public service. The agreement also provides certainty for public servants in respect of job security and income levels. The challenge of doing more with less requires a fresh approach to the design and delivery of public programmes and the management of the organisations responsible for them. The Government is confident that the Irish public service, at all levels, has the capacity for change and innovation, and that the terms of the agreement provide the means of realising that capacity to the full.

An important part of the Government's efforts to increase competitiveness and support economic growth is the better regulation agenda. The better regulation unit in my Department plays a central role in driving efforts to ensure that optimum regulatory conditions are created and maintained. Earlier this year, I chaired the first meeting of an annual regulatory forum which allows the Government to engage directly with regulators on key priorities relating to the economy, competitiveness and competition issues. Arising from that meeting, Departments and key regulators have commenced work to stress-test the regulatory frameworks in their respective sectors with a view to presenting an overall report to the Government in the autumn.

The Department is also responsible for liaising with the OECD on the current review of Ireland's regulatory systems and processes. The review, funded by the European Commission, is part of a broader project encompassing all 15 original member states of the EU. It is expected to be completed in October and should provide added impetus for initiatives such as regulatory impact analysis and the administrative burden reduction programme being overseen by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.

The EU and international affairs division supports me in my role as a member of the European Council and in dealing with Ireland's role in European and international affairs. The division works in close collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments to promote and protect Ireland's interests in the EU and other international forums. It also seeks to ensure that Ireland can contribute to the strengthening of the EU and the multilateral rules-based system, including the United Nations.

Preparations for my participation in European Council meetings are coordinated by EU and international affairs division. Recent events in the EU and particularly the euro zone have brought home to all of us the need for better co-ordination of economic and budgetary policy. Much of the recent work of the European Council has focused on the economic crisis in the following three areas: regulation of the financial markets and the banking system; economic measures, including Europe 2020 and economic coordination; and mutual support among member states, such as the recent Greek loan package and the European financial stability facility.

Other major issues discussed over the past year at the European Council are the Lisbon treaty, including the Irish guarantees and the new arrangements under treaty, and major international issues such as climate change. With the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the format of the European Council has changed in several respects. To begin with, there is now a permanent President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy. Heads of State and the Government are no longer accompanied by foreign Ministers at meeting sessions, as was previously the case. Meetings of the European Council are normally prepared by the General Affairs Council.

While the European Council is expected to meet formally perhaps four times a year, there can also be informal or special meetings which are more ad hoc in nature and do not usually have formally agreed conclusions. To illustrate, since June 2008 there have been nine formal meetings and eight informal, ad hoc or special meetings, meetings of the European Council and meetings of Heads of State and the Government of the euro zone. I believe President Van Rompuy’s intention is to settle on a pattern of meeting on average every two months, which would be a reduction in the recent rate.

The European Union continues to grow in importance in terms of Irish public and private life. The combination of the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the extent of the economic difficulties of some member states and an increasing sense of declining EU influence on the world stage means we must work harder and more smartly to maintain our voice and influence. This will include increasing engagement with the European institutions, intensifying bilateral relations between Ireland and our EU partners, and improving internal coordination of EU business.

As a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the role of the Oireachtas has increased in importance. This is true with regard to scrutiny, as parliaments for the first time have the power to send proposals back to the drawing board. It is also true with regard to the possible use of various clauses in the treaty for which the assent of national parliaments is now required. I note in that regard the important work going on in the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on the Review of the Role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs.

The interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs, chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Roche, has a co-ordinating role with regard to EU issues, including ensuring that the timely and correct transposition of EU directives remains a priority for Departments. The EU and international affairs division of my Department provides the secretariat for that committee.

The internal market scoreboard monitors member states' progress on the transposition into national law of EU directives. In the last scoreboard, published in December, Ireland had a deficit score of 1%, achieving the target agreed by EU Heads of State and Government for the fourth consecutive time.

On the international side, my Department's main interest is in strengthening bilateral relations with non-EU states, particularly in respect to international trade, with a focus on emerging economies. As part of Ireland's strategic approach to further developing our bilateral political, economic and cultural relations with non-EU member states, I often meet international partners. Participation in international visits and summits serves to maintain Ireland's position at the forefront of international matters and raise our profile in terms of inward and outward economic and investment opportunities.

My Department provides direct support for me in respect of international visits and associated meetings. It works closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other Departments and agencies in assessing the strategic political and economic aspects of my international engagements. Over the past 12 months, these have included a meeting with the United Nations Secretary General to discuss the millennium development goals, attendance at the UN summits on climate change in New York and Copenhagen, a visit to New York as part of the St. Patrick's Day celebrations, and attendance at the EU-Latin America and Caribbean summit in Madrid.

Continued support for a whole-of-Government response to the challenge of economic recovery will again dominate the work of the Department in 2010. It is in the nature of the Department of the Taoiseach to maintain and develop its capabilities to support the Government's response to emerging issues and to ensure that procedures and communications are effective in that regard.

I will outline briefly the position on the Estimates for the independent legal offices for which I have certain administrative responsibilities and accountability to the House.

The Office of the Attorney General is focused on the need to provide legal services to its wide range of clients and is constantly alive to the need to ensure that its lawyers are best equipped to do so. This involves making sure that legal staff are fully expert in their areas of legal work and have at their disposal all resources to do their work to the highest standard required by the Government. Law is constantly changing, as we know, through case law and new legislation, and is constantly re-interpreted. New areas of law develop, including through international bodies and courts outside our jurisdiction, such as the law of the European Union, the Union courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and international law. This means that the lawyers and administrative staff in the office must work together to ensure high levels of legal expertise and high standards of service delivery to its clients.

The office has continued to embed and enhance its client service initiatives, has fully rolled out its case and records management system, ACME, has implemented its statement of strategy for the period 2008 to 2010, has made significant progress in modernisation under the terms of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016, and has implemented the recommendations of the Sullivan report, as well as giving advice on key legal cases and drafting critical legislation, frequently at short notice.

For 2010 the Office has a net administrative budget of €15.2 million, compared to an outturn of €15.5 million for 2009. As is usual in the Office of the Attorney General, a significant proportion — close to two thirds — of the budget is allocated to salaries. This high proportion reflects the fact that the office is a legal professional organisation providing legal services to the Government and Departments and does not have expenditure programmes. The next largest expenditure is €2.3 million, representing 15% of the budget, for the Law Reform Commission, which is channelled through our Vote as a grant-in-aid.

The need to effect savings in public expenditure is fully appreciated by the office. In the past two years it has reorganised staff to operate within the financial parameters set down by Government while maintaining the expected high level of service. Finances and other resources such as staff will be restricted for the foreseeable future, and the office's main challenge will continue to adapt to ensure it meets the demands of its clients.

Vote 13 is for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. The Estimate for that office is €36.415 million. Salaries, wages and allowances in the office account for €15 million. A total of €920,000 has been allocated to office machinery and other office supplies and related services. Included here is the cost of upgrading the computer hardware housing the case and records management system and financial management systems in use in the office, which are shared with the Office of the Attorney General. The maintenance and support of these systems is also funded from this amount.

A figure of €17.9 million is allocated for the payment of fees to counsel and other general legal expenses. These figures show a substantial decrease over the 2009 provisional outturn. The remaining €3.449 million is attributable to the general running costs of the office and includes provision for items such as training, security, cleaning, utilities and upkeep of offices. Appropriations-in-aid are estimated at €1.6 million euro and will include costs recovered by the office along with the recoupment of the pension levy.

The Estimate for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Vote 14, is €43,240,000. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, the cost of the local State solicitor service, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and his staff, the cost of the local State solicitor service, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings. The office's main objective is to provide a prosecution service that is independent, fair and effective.

I commend these Estimates to the committee and thank the members for their attention. I now hand over to the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, who will make a statement on the Estimates for the Central Statistics Office, for which he has ministerial responsibility.

The Central Statistics Office is responsible for the collection, processing and publication of official statistics on economic, social and general conditions in Ireland. Although the main focus is on the statistical requirements of Government, there is a very wide community of users of statistics. These include the social partners, numerous public bodies, business, universities, research institutes and the general public. All the CSO's releases and publications are available on-line, and the office is continually improving its on-line services, to promote the availability and use of statistics.

There is a significant international dimension to the work of the CSO. The statistical demands resulting from EU regulations continue to increase and other international bodies, including the OECD and the IMF, are important users of the statistics produced by the CSO. Net expenditure by the CSO in 2009 amounted to €48.572 million. The 2010 net allocation is €57.832 million. Preparations for the census of population next year are the largest factor in the increase between 2009 and 2010. This year's allocation also provides for the June 2010 census of agriculture and for the collection of the household budget survey.

Preparations for the 2011 census of population are well advanced. Work in 2010 includes: printing the census forms; preparing field maps; the first phases in recruiting the 5,500 field staff to collect the census; and putting in place the systems to scan and process the expected 1.7 million census forms. Census day is Sunday, 10 April 2011. The CSO plans to publish preliminary results within three months and the first detailed results within 12 months of the census. All census reports will be published before the end of 2012.

The CSO issued questionnaires to almost 154,000 farm addresses on 1 June for the census of agriculture which takes place every ten years. On this occasion it requires less form filling, as information on cattle and cereals is being obtained directly by the CSO from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Preliminary results will be available in November and a detailed analysis of agriculture by county will be published in 2012.

The current household budget survey began in August 2009. This survey collects information from about 8,000 households over a 12-month period. The survey measures household income and expenditure patterns. The data on household spending also provides the weights, or basket of goods and services, used in calculating the consumer price index. The HBS takes place every five years and the results will be published in 2011.

As part of its overall strategy, the CSO is committed to managing and reducing the response burden on business. Between 2007 and 2008, the burden caused by CSO surveys fell by 7%. The CSO is continuing to reduce burden, by taking a co-ordinated approach to the design of questionnaires and sample sizes, integration of data available from existing surveys and administrative sources, and greater use of electronic reporting methods. The CSO publishes an annual report on response burden to track its progress in this area.

The approach taken by the CSO to tackling response burden is very much in line with the National Statistics Board's strategy for statistics, 2009-2014, which places a strong emphasis on the overall Irish statistical system and on realising the statistical potential of administrative records. I am confident the CSO will continue to work effectively with other Departments and agencies to provide a co-ordinated response to statistical needs and help support the effective use of statistics to inform policy.

The CSO was one of four Departments and offices which took part in the organisational review programme in 2009 and the report on this is due to be published within the next two weeks. This review process looks at strategy, management of the delivery of services and how improvements can be made. As part of the review, the CSO has prepared an action plan which will be incorporated into the office's statement of strategy for 2011 to 2013.

The number of staff provided for in the CSO's Vote for 2010 is 802 which compares with 793 in 2009. The small net increase this year reflects the major cyclical projects, namely, the household budget survey, the census of agriculture and preparations for the census of population which form a major part of the CSO's work programme this year.

I thank the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Curran. I call on Deputy O'Donnell and remind him that specific questions can be asked when we move to consider each Vote. He may make a general statement.

I welcome the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, and their officials. The Taoiseach provided a general outline of the costs and general functions of his Department. I wish to deal with some key elements that crop up, the first being the Moriarty tribunal. Will the Taoiseach provide us with an indication as to when he expects the final report to be concluded and published, what further extra costs may be incurred and the total cost incurred to date? I note on page 39 of the briefing note it is highly unlikely that determination of the overall costswill be completed in 2010.

There is the issue of transformation of public services. Does the Taoiseach intend to appoint a public services board shortly? I am interested to know the make-up of the board and how many people will be appointed. Will the chairperson come from within the Government, from a public service body or from the private sector? What will be the board’s specific terms of reference? For how long a period will it report?

We will wait to explore specific objectives and ask specific questions on Votes.

I note in the Taoiseach's presentation there is no mention of e-Government although this falls under the aegis of his Department. There was an e-Government strategy which was worthwhile although it was probably very broad in its orientation and many of the projects appear not to have come to fruition. The Taoiseach might indicate his views on the e-Government strategy and where it stands at present.

The Taoiseach spoke about the EU 2020 agreement which is, effectively, a growth strategy for Europe. When does the Government intend to make its submission to Europe? One of the specific aims is to raise 75% of the employment rate for men and women aged 20 to 64. Bridging the Government deficit cannot be done purely by fiscal austerity measures alone and Europe has clearly identified as much in the 2020 agreement. That acknowledgement has been missing from the fabric of Government policy in recent years. I would like the Taoiseach to elaborate on that point, given that we have just finished discussing the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill in regard to the €440 billion guarantee to be given by member states.

As a general comment on the annual output statement, although I welcome the actual statement, I observe that while it gives outputs it does not give targets for 2009. It would add greatly to the document if these were supplied. Outputs for 2009 as achieved and target outputs for 2010 are provided. We cannot see what we have achieved without knowing what the actual target was. The Taoiseach might address this in his response. It takes somewhat from the report. We are six months into 2010 and only now have we received the outputs achieved for 2009. Furthermore, we are considering voted expenditure six months after the start of the year. This should be examined from a structural viewpoint as well as the way Government policy is organised and dealt with.

I refer to page one of the statement on the implementation of annual output, which states that Government policy requires close co-operation between the components of the centre, which in this case is comprised of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance. What is the Taoiseach's view of this and the way the Department operates, given that an external review of the Department of Finance is taking place at the moment? We have seen various media reports in this regard. It is critically important for the terms of reference to include the executive functions of the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach with regard to Government policy.

The Taoiseach is probably aware that the committee has been asked by the Minister for Finance to carry out a review of macro policy over a period yet to be determined. This is an important development for all the relevant parties and especially for Government policy. As the Taoiseach and former Minister for Finance, it is important that Deputy Cowen would grace us with his presence at the public hearings so that we can get an insight into the policy directions and decisions that took place across a range of areas. In particular, I refer to tax incentive schemes. For example, I note that as part of the Finance Act 2004 the schemes were to conclude by 31 July 2006. The Taoiseach commissioned a report into the tax incentive schemes in December 2005. At that time, approximately seven months of the schemes remained. Then suddenly, the schemes were extended for a further three and a half years to 31 July 2008.

For the purposes of clarity and given that an external report is being carried out on the Department of Finance it would be wise, prudent and it would show leadership in his capacity as Taoiseach and as a former Minister for Finance for the Taoiseach to appear before the committee when we hold hearings. It is critical that these hearings should include Government policy decisions and the external review of the Department of Finance. We are all keen to put in place mechanisms to ensure sound financial systems and structures within Departments so that they come to decisions which are prudent and which deal with the challenges that arise. People are of the view that we do not need to look back at what happened. The Regling-Watson and Honohan reports offered a valuable insight into policy decisions which arose over time, but we gathered no insight into decisions taken by the Government and especially by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance.

The Taoiseach is considering the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry into the banking sector. The Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service is due to hold a public debate or discussion on the matter with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, next week. I refer again to the Honohan and Regling-Watson reports. Professor Honohan referred to sketchy records at the time of the bank guarantee on 29 and 30 September. It would be informative if the Taoiseach were to appear at a public hearing of this commission of inquiry such that we could get an insight into the decisions made. A Merrill Lynch report, of which we were unaware, surfaced as part of the Honohan report and referred to major reservations about the position of subordinated debt. It suggested such debt should not be included as part of the guarantee. However, the two main banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland, came in on the night of the guarantee or around that time and called for subordinated debt to be included. The end result was that subordinated debt was included as part of the guarantee. At this stage, we are none the wiser as to how that arose.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, will appear before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I trust that the Taoiseach, as one of the relevant people on the night the decisions were made, will offer clarity on the issue. In the broader context of the public's view of the political process, which includes Government and Opposition politicians, we need openness and transparency and we need to know how certain decisions took place. Furthermore, the Oireachtas committee and the commission of inquiry into the banking sector should consider the macro policy decisions taken by Government. I refer to the advice given to the Taoiseach by officials at the time when he was the Minister for Finance and as Taoiseach. It is important that officials make such information available to us so that we could examine the judgments the Taoiseach made and the decisions taken. It was his prerogative at the time to make such decisions but they had consequences and we must be aware of the context in which those decisions were made.

I welcome the Taoiseach and his team to the committee. I am keen for the Taoiseach to comment on several issues. Recently, at the Estimates meeting of the Department of Finance, the Minister for Finance produced a written statement to the effect that he proposes to carry out an independent inquiry into and review of the Department. Given that fact, much of the Taoiseach's statement to the committee today was devoted to economic matters, the fall-out from the economic collapse and sustaining jobs. From all the records, it would appear the Taoiseach was rather hands on with regard to the matters leading to the collapse and that his Department was very involved in all the important meetings and decisions that took place. In many ways, the Taoiseach and his Department may have been the lead persons with regard to many of the decisions.

Recently, the Minister for Finance appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance and Finance and the Public Service. In the discussion he referred to his proposal that the joint committee could hold an inquiry into economic policy and governance because, to paraphrase the Regling report, those affairs were not subject to legalistic type inquiries. The Minister specifically mentioned the Taoiseach and indicated he would be pleased to come before the committee to answer questions and to make available documents that would be useful to the committee. The Minister was speaking for himself but it would be interesting to know if he was reflecting the Taoiseach's position. Will the Taoiseach make documents available to this committee and appear before it to answer questions?

Only a few days ago, the Minister for Finance provided examples of the documentation he was willing to make available, including the documentation arising from the committee that is described or referred to as the domestic standing group. He also referred specifically to the Merrill Lynch report. The Regling and Watson and the Honohan reports have also referred to the Merrill Lynch report, pointing out the implications or consequences for Government debt costs of the blanket nature of the guarantee that the Taoiseach and his Government decided upon on the night of the guarantee. I would like to know when he will make himself available to the committee and if he can supply it with a list of documents and the type of documentation the Department will make available.

I wish to comment on the Minister's inquiry into the Department of Finance, which apparently is to be conducted to some degree by a panel which, based on the impression I got from the Minister, would included international experts. Given the very symbiotic relationship between the Taoiseach's Department and the Department of Finance would it not be fair to both Departments to link the Taoiseach's Department to that inquiry because it seems to me that both are such cutting edge Departments in terms of the events that occurred that it might be difficult and impractical for the people doing the inquiries not to have both Departments within the remit? I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's observations.

As the Taoiseach mentioned the central role of his Department in regard to the economic crisis, unemployment and so on, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance acknowledged, rather belatedly, that the Department did not have a lot of in-house expertise on, for example, areas such as banking or business economists. It may have had a number of macro-economists but it did not necessarily have economists who had any specialisation in regard to business. If it had analysts who were capable of analysing banking data it might not have changed the political decisions which were taken but it might have allowed them to provide higher quality advice on decisions.

Could the Taoiseach tell us what level of expertise his Department now has at its disposal? Does it have in-house accountants, banking analysts or economic analysts who have skills in banking or does it hire in people by way of consultancy? Does the Taoiseach have a preference, to use his phrase, "going forward" as to what type of expertise he would see the Department developing? Obviously the economic crisis and jobs crisis will be quite all-consuming and the calibre and quality of the information which is available to the Taoiseach in his onerous job is very important.

On the economic and EU element to which he referred, as the previous speaker said we are also passing legislation in the Dáil today on the €750 billion stabilisation fund to, we hope, keep the euro afloat. What is the Taoiseach's view, as leader of Government, on his Department's role in regard to the exit strategy of the guarantee? As I said, when the Taoiseach comes before the committee and gives it the documents we will know more about it in detail at that point. Given that in a couple of months we will arrive at the second anniversary of the guarantee and that there has already been a broad indication from the Government that it wants to extend the guarantee by at least a month, but preferably to the end of the year, what work is taking place in the Department of the Taoiseach in that regard?

Given that the EU and Ireland have signed up to the stabilisation fund, which I and the Labour Party support, the price of that is significant and is an increase in the intensity of the surveillance processes of the European Union over Irish budgetary affairs and its debt position, given that the crisis in the EU is largely regarded as a sovereign debt crisis. Can the Taoiseach tell us what role his Department is playing, presumably in conjunction with the Department of Finance, in resolving the overhang from the guarantee which is variously reckoned to be between €29 billion and approximately €70 billion? What is the Taoiseach's view on that?

Was the Taoiseach surprised by newspaper and media reports today that, apparently, the principals of Treasury Holdings, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Ronan of Real Estate Opportunities, are in the first wave of people in NAMA? They are indicating in the media today that they are putting some kind of proposition through NAMA, presumably to the Government, to get involved in the financing of the Battersea Power Station project. Could the Taoiseach confirm that is the case? Given that the Battersea Power Station project is reckoned to cost between €5 billion and €6 billion would it be matter for Government, given that in the legislation the total budget of NAMA for assisting developers to complete developments is, I understand, €5 billion? As this is a major issue, what will the input of the Government or the Department be into what is a major decision?

On the A headings, as Deputy O'Donnell has pointed out the increase for the tribunal is significant. The Estimate for 2010 is up by almost——

We will deal with that when we come to it.

These questions are very quick and simple. I will not have to repeat them.

We can answer them when we come to that section.

Fine. I will ask a final question. On the Taoiseach's committee's oversight of the smart economy — I have never heard of anyone being in favour of the stupid economy — what sort of update does he have on broadband penetration, in particular in terms of jobs? We are trying to regenerate jobs in tourism, distance working and teleworking. Over and over again people find that the absence of real progress on broadband is massively hindering job development on a small and medium scale in remote locations right around the country, even in parts of cities and towns where broadband simply does not reach. For instance, tourists who want to book on-line, which is how most do it nowadays, often find that if they want to go to an Irish holiday home or hotel that is in a more remote location they simply do not have the facilities in terms of on-line services and broadband which have become extremely common in almost every other country, not just in Europe but throughout the east and most other parts of the world, with the exception of most of Africa.

If the Taoiseach has any general replies he could give them at this stage. We can deal with the specific questions when we reach the relevant subheads.

I will reply to what has been said. Is that the best thing to do?

If you wish.

I will speak on the issues raised by Deputy O'Donnell. The total expenditure since the Moriarty tribunal was established until the end of May was €39.57 million. The sole member of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Moriarty, has not yet addressed third party costs. Until that is done, we cannot estimate the overall cost of the tribunal with any accuracy. The tribunal secretariat has on many occasions over the years told my Department that any attempt by the tribunal to quantify third party costs would lead to conclusions being drawn and suppositions being made which could infringe on the rights of witnesses and impinge on the independence of the tribunal.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's special report on tribunals of inquiry, in attempting to establish some estimate of the overall cost of the tribunal, gave various ranges for third party costs but stressed the figures were subject to many caveats and contingencies.

There was a meeting between party leaders recently regarding the Moriarty tribunal and we agreed on the desirability of the tribunal completing its work as soon as possible, consistent with its mandate, and we agreed to write to the judge to that effect in response to his letter to the Clerk of the Dáil. That letter issued to the judge.

The judge in his letter to the Clerk of the Dáil set out the factors that will affect the timescale for the completion of his work and he mentioned the possible availability of Mr. Andersen to give evidence to the tribunal as one of those factors. In this context he indicated that he is considering publishing two reports, one dealing with the so-called money trail and the other dealing with the awarding of the second GSM licence. He has indicated he is hopeful the tribunal's work will be completed before the end of the year.

Arising from a Supreme Court decision, it continues to be open to the sole member not to award costs to parties who do not co-operate with or obstruct his inquiry. In this context, previous considerations of the projected level of third party costs remain valid. In response to queries from my Department, the tribunal has always insisted that any attempt to quantify such costs could lead to conjecture and inferences being drawn that could affect the rights of persons affected by the tribunal of inquiry.

Regarding the question of transforming the public service, a public service board is envisaged that will support transformation on a public service-wide basis and bring greater focus and energy to the task of public service transformation. It will include a majority of members from outside the public service, with appropriate experience and skill, strengthening the capacity to provide specialist support for the change process in key functional areas and putting in place new arrangements to accelerate the pace of change in consultation with the public service unions.

This board will promote and push the implementation of the transformation report. The Croke Park agreement has been accepted and that sets out sectoral agreements. It will be a matter now, based on established procedures, for local management and unions to work through those issues. Under the agreement, where an issue of a general nature arises that must be resolved, an implementation body is envisaged. It will be representative of management and unions with an independent chair. There is a fine timeline for such matters to be considered and decided. It is a specialised arbitration mechanism that is built into the agreement rather than going through the traditional IR processes that can sometimes be time consuming. There is agreement that arrangement would be the means by which issues get resolved in the normal industrial relations process.

When will that be up and running?

That will be finalised soon. There is a need to proceed with that now that agreement has been secured. We are in consultation with the unions on finalising the implementation body personnel and board, although the board has a wider remit.

At senior public service level we want to encourage greater mobility at higher levels so people gain experience across the service rather than having a career solely in one Department. It is a question of improving mobility and providing wider opportunities for experience to be gained across the system and will enhance the leadership and management functions in the service.

According to the latest EU Commission e-Government benchmarks, Ireland's ranking for on-line sophistication has improved from 17th position in 2007 to joint seventh now, an equivalent rating to Britain and Finland. The same benchmarks place Ireland in the top two for e-procurement services. Examples of on-line services that have been progressed in the past while include: the census information search facilities; the on-line system for the payment of charges on non-principal private residences; on-line application for birth, marriage and death certificates; automatic reminders where driver licence and passports expire; payments for the majority of court fines; and on-line declarations from the Garda for minor crimes where customers do not need to know the relevant Garda station as back end processes ensure they are routed correctly.

Additionally, Ireland is one of the only countries in Europe that has put in place a high speed national Government network to which all public bodies can connect using any telecommunications operator in the Irish market place. The Department of Finance is current working with Departments, offices and agencies to develop a rolling programme of e-Government projects. In this regard, the Departments are developing detailed e-Government plans.

The EU 2020 strategy was adopted at the last Council meeting. How do we identify areas of economic growth in the next decade in Europe as part of the fiscal challenge facing every country with the exception of Luxembourg, Estonia and a few others, which are not excessive deficit procedure countries? The strategy is available on-line and is concerned with energy, the knowledge society and education. It has also brought forward an flagship initiative. The national reform programme will reflect the 2020 European targets, and will be submitted by every member state. In the Irish submission, the reform programmes drawn up on foot of the strategy will reflect the challenges we face in those areas.

When will those go to Europe?

It will be in October. I will set out the position on the other matters raised by Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Burton on the role of the Department of the Taoiseach on economic and financial policy. We do not have a second Department of Finance, there are two separate Departments with specific roles. The Department of the Taoiseach's role in respect of economic policy, as in other aspects of public policy, is to support the processes of decision making by the Government and to support me in my role as Head of Government and principal spokesman for the Government and its policies. The Department plays an active role in leading the social partnership process and engaging with the work of the National Economic and Social Council. It also leads the work of the clearing house group on international financial services. In recent years it has provided support for Cabinet committees which, under my chairmanship, deal with economic and social policy and which facilitate the sharing of information and analysis and the preparation of decisions by Ministers.

In these various areas of activity my Department works closely with others, particularly the Department of Finance. It does not operate any separate economic forecasting or analysis functions. In addition, it does not prepare budgetary options or direct the work of other Departments, particularly that of the Department of Finance. It is the Department's role to ensure I am briefed on issues coming before Government and for bilateral discussions with Ministers. It is also its responsibility to identify issues which merit further consideration in order that appropriate decisions might be taken.

In its conduct of negotiations with the social partners, the Department, on behalf of the Government and in close co-operation with other Departments, takes the lead. Negotiations have been always framed within the context of policies set out in the various programmes for Government. Issues arising from these negotiations are subject to Government approval and are typically overseen by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance of the day.

Pay negotiations are conducted by private sector employers and private sector trade unions and are facilitated by my Department. Pay in the public service was negotiated between the public service trade unions and the management side, led by the Department of Finance — typically in the context of the outcome of the private sector discussions.

If, arising from the consideration of the reports into the banking sector and the review of the Department of Finance, which has been announced by the Minister for Finance, there are any issues relating to the role of my Department, I will be anxious to deal with them. My Department is currently the subject of a review under the organisational review programme, which is being led by an official from the Department of Finance. I have no doubt that this review will give rise to issues for consideration with regard to how the Department is structured and goes about its work. In this regard, my Department engages closely with prime ministers' offices in other jurisdictions, particularly through the OECD network, where similar issues relating to the contribution of the centre of government and relationships between the offices of prime ministers and treasuries are frequently reviewed.

Those are the general points I would make in respect of how the relationship works. As already stated, we do not undertake separate economic or banking analysis, other than in the context of servicing meetings of the Cabinet and its committees and in summarising the available material from the Department of Finance and other Departments. My Department works closely with other Departments and does not duplicate their work or analysis. I meet regularly with Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, and senior officials in order to be briefed on issues. My Department does not engage in the formulation of banking policy separately from the Department of Finance. That is how the Cabinet operates.

I just wish to ask a supplementary question.

Does the Deputy have a question?

Will she please direct it through the Chair?

Through the Chair, a large part of the Taoiseach's lengthy statement deals with the fallout from the economic collapse. In contemporary media reports relating to the events surrounding the extension of the guarantee, he and his officials were described as "being there" when——

We are going to move on to discuss the specific subheads.

Am I being censored? The Minister for Finance came before the committee a few days ago and stated that he was launching an inquiry into the activities of his Department. The Taoiseach's statement, which is very extensive——

We are actually discussing the Estimates.

Sorry, the Taoiseach appears to be willing to answer questions.

The Deputy was given an opportunity to make a statement and the Taoiseach is replying to that.

I asked the Taoiseach a question.

We are moving on.

There are a number of points with which the Taoiseach would like——

We are moving on to the deal with the Estimates, which we are specifically required to report on.

Deputy O'Donnell is not speaking for the Taoiseach.

No, but we would like to hear what the Taoiseach has to say.

The Chairman seems to be speaking for the Taoiseach and he is not doing it very well.

We must move on to the specific——

We would already have obtained the answers we were seeking if the Chairman had not intervened.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to conclude what he has to say on this matter.

The Taoiseach is perfectly willing to reply. The Chairman is overprotecting him. That is not the best idea.

I am not protecting anybody. I am dealing with the orders that have been given to this committee——

The Chairman is not——

I think the Taoiseach would like to speak.

——to deal with the specific Estimates that have been laid before it for discussion. That is what we must do.

The Taoiseach would like to speak.

With regard to the management of the banking crisis, particularly in the context of timing, and the documents generated by the Department of Finance and those we would have in respect of meetings of the Government — which are subject to Cabinet confidentiality — I was making that point that we can provide anything that is available within the Department of the Taoiseach. As already stated, however, the provision of such documents would be governed by Cabinet confidentiality and, in any event, we do not have a wide range of such documents. The issues that would arise would be consideration of the documents that would be coming forward from——

The decisions relating to the guarantee scheme were taken by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance.

That is not at issue at all.

We agreed at the commencement of the meeting that we would deal with Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach, between 3.35 p.m. and 4 p.m.

The Chair asked us to make opening statements, which we have done. We are awaiting a reply from the Taoiseach.

We are now moving on to the specific subheads. We are required to complete our consideration of the latter by 4.30 p.m.

With respect, there are two or three points——

We are moving on to Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach.

Will the Taoiseach appear at——

Will the Deputy——

I do not wish there to be any contention with the Chairman and I do not believe an issue arises. The basic question members asked related to whether I, as Taoiseach, will be available to appear——

I made it clear, when the banking reports were published, that I would be available at any time to discuss whatever issues the committee wishes to raise with me.

At present, the committee is considering the matters with which the commission of investigation will be obliged to deal. We sent draft terms of reference to the committee, which has had the opportunity to listen to the views of the authors of the reports into the banking sector.

With regard to the specific point that was raised in respect of the night of 30 September 2008, Professor Honohan is on record as stating that he has set out in clear detail, as he has——

Yes, concerns about the level of detail relating to——

Perhaps the Deputy might allow me to respond. I do not see the point of his interrupting every time I speak.

I accept that it has been a difficult week for people but let us just keep calm.

It has not been that bad a week. However, I thank the Taoiseach for his concern.

I thought the Deputy's demeanour was somewhat glum this week. I am glad to hear he is in good form.

The Taoiseach will put me in good form if he replies to the questions.

To return to the point, the position at the time has been set out in clear terms. The rationale behind the decisions we took is clearly set out in the report. We wanted to ensure a proposal that would be easy to understand would be made and that this would, in turn, ensure there would be money in the banking system in the following days. We have outlined that fact. As stated when the reports into the banking sector were published, I, as Taoiseach of the day, will be available to meet the committee when it decides how it wishes to proceed. That is a matter for members. I remain open to invitation.

A decision has not yet been made in respect of that matter.

Will we have access to the relevant documents?

We are moving on to——

I have just outlined the position in respect of the documents.

We must proceed to deal with our other business.

I understand that there are time constraints. However, I wish to make the position clear in respect of the relevant documents. As already stated, Cabinet confidentiality issues arise in respect of documents prepared by the Department of the Taoiseach for Cabinet meetings. We do not have many documents relating to the period in questions. The documents that were coming forward were those being made available by the Minister for Finance. If there are any documents in my Department that are relevant——

The Taoiseach will make them available.

Yes, if they contain anything of relevance. This relates to the point I made earlier to the effect that the Department does not carry out separate budgetary, financial or economic analysis. It works with the other Departments in respect of such matters — in the instance in question it was the Department of Finance — and with regard to the preparation of proposals for Government. The sponsoring Minister brings forward such proposals, they are discussed at Cabinet level and decisions are taken, with or without amendment. That is the normal process.

As already stated——

As we are required to carry out a specific task, we must move on.

——the Secretary General of the Department of Finance said that, with hindsight, he does not have enough skills. The question is whether the Taoiseach possesses sufficient skills.

We will move to Vote No. 2 from the Department of the Taoiseach and strategic objective No. 1, supporting government and subhead A8, information society and Cabinet and other initiatives.

I would like to ask questions about a number of issues.

The Deputy can come in on specific subheads.

Traditionally, when we have dealt with an Estimate, we always had an opportunity to have a general discussion about the operation of the Department. We are being confined to dealing with subheads.

The Deputy will have to discuss that with his convenor.

Since I entered Parliament in 1981, a general discussion of interest to all Dáil Members has taken place on the Estimates and I would like that tradition to be maintained. I would like to ask a few simple questions, which may not be allowed on the basis of the way the Chairman proposes to proceed.

On which specific issues?

On the Taoiseach's general submission to the committee. For example, regarding pubic services the Taoiseach stated, "We are committed to a public service worthy of the best traditions of those who have worked to develop our State and its institutions over the decades". My party supports that.

That comes under strategic priority.

Can I ask a general question?

Yes, but the Deputy should refer it to the Estimate.

In line with the desire of the Government and all the Opposition parties, should a Department of the public service be re-established with a Cabinet Minister? That is a relevant and important question. The reform of the public service interests us all. Given the problems being dealt with by the Department of Finance, does the Taoiseach intend to re-establish this Department with a political head, as we had in the early 1980s, in line with Government policy to reform the public service, as enunciated by him?

I also welcome the Government Chief Whip. Given the new obligations that rest on the Department of the Taoiseach following the passage of the Lisbon treaty and how the business of the House is organised through the Whips office, is it time to review the number of committees and to perhaps re-establish eight major appropriately resourced committees in order that we can do the job expected of us properly as a result of the treaty and other changes? We have a ridiculous scenario with more than 24 committees. Resources are spread thinly and they are not able to do their work properly. Consideration should be given to the scrapping of the Oireachtas commission to fund them — this is a personal opinion. The commission costs too much for a small Parliament with a small population. I would prefer eight properly resourced committees with appropriate supports doing the job expected of them. It is impossible to scrutinise future legislation provided for under the Lisbon treaty under the present system. The resources and structures are not in place to do that. This is part and parcel of the obligations of the Department through the Whips office.

It is 2010 and the structures in place are there since the foundation of the State. Circumstances have changed so rapidly that it is time we changed our system of government and our system of parliamentary democracy. If properly resourced committees were in place, instead of dealing with Bills on Committee Stage and wasting hours on presentations from interested parties seeking amendments after the horse has bolted, all this work could be done prior to the publication of legislation and the preparation of heads of Bill. If the Government approved heads of Bill and sent them to a committee while imposing a deadline of between four and six weeks for a report back, the committee, in turn, could seek the views of interested bodies in connection with the legislation. When the Bill is published, it could pass through Parliament more quickly because amendments would not be needed on Committee Stage and the entire Bill could be dealt with in the Chamber. The work of the committees could be done well in advance of the finalisation of the preparation of legislation. However, this depends on the provision of properly resourced committees to do that. We do not need a committee per Department. The only reason we have them is to process Committee Stage of legislation. If this were done the other way, one committee could cover two or three Departments.

The final issue I would like to raise also relates to the additional load taken on by the Taoiseach's Department under the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. I chair the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. This is another important issue facing the country in the context of obligations we will face under European and global agreements. The Department has a leading role to play in this but, again, because of the structures and lack of available staff in the Department it will be impossible to monitor this. However, this is the only Department that can drive this. That was provided for in the Bill my committee drafted through our rapporteur, Deputy Liz McManus. In the context of the Estimates, the savings to change the system can be found by scrapping the Oireachtas commission. There is no reason for a massive commission to run this small institution comprising a Dáil of 166 Members and a Seanad of 60 Members, which may or may not be with us in the future. The savings should be transferred to a properly resourced committee structure that would make government more effective and give Departments satisfaction in carrying out their obligations and duties.

The Chief Whip's office should be equivalent to the Cabinet Office in the British system. The Chief Whip's role is under utilised. I had the pleasure and honour of serving as Government Chief Whip in the 1980s but the office is under resourced. If a constitutional amendment is proposed, we should consider extending full Cabinet responsibility to the Government Chief Whip because that role is vitally important in steering through the changes that will be needed into the future. There are many Cabinet sub-committees and good intentions and the Taoiseach is regularly asked how often they meet. However, it is a physical impossibility for him to chair them. The Government Chief Whip should chair the meetings and report to the Taoiseach. Instead of seeking additional expenditure without finding savings, I am outlining the savings. The money will be saved by scrapping the commission. The money should be transferred into a proper structure to give us a modern Parliament that can do a job properly. The Constitution should be amended, if necessary, when other constitutional changes are proposed, to allow this to happen. It is time we ended this farce where, on the Order of Business every three or four months, we ask the Taoiseach when he will carry out Dáil reform. This is getting us nowhere. I look forward to hearing the Taoiseach's reply.

Deputy Barrett, that comes under——

I have a question on a related matter.

Okay. Will the Deputy allow me to speak?

Can I ask my question?

I was trying to say that Deputy Barrett was in order because it comes under the output statements.

Just as my comments came entirely within the framework of the outputs statements.

I disagree with that.

We will have to send the Chairman on a course over the summer on how to chair a committee.

I understand the Oireachtas commission made a proposal to the Taoiseach to reduce the number of committees from 22 to 15. It is a decision entirely for the Taoiseach. This committee finds it extremely difficult to get a room because many of the other 21 committees seem to have a lot of meetings, even though, in many cases, I do not believe we are very au fait with exactly what goes on in them. The Oireachtas commission has made a start by proposing a reduction in the number of committees to 15. Money is obviously tight. It is entirely a matter for the Taoiseach to stand down seven of the committees to start with.

I agree with what Deputy Barrett said that we now have structures which were created by Charlie McCreevy who said if one has the money, one should spend it and party on. We do not have that luxury currently. A proposal has been agreed by all the parties to the Oireachtas commission to reduce the number of committees by seven immediately. Why has the Taoiseach not responded to that and not opted to take up those savings on offer to him?

Other people would want to go on some courses as well to know the difference between dealing with Estimates and general discussions on subjects which do not come within the Estimates.

Everything I said was within the Estimates.

In regard to the idea of a separate department of the pubic service, a reasonable argument is often put forward in that respect, as Deputy Barrett did. To separate the pay, administration and performance of the public service from the budgetary and expenditure control functions of the Department of Finance would be problematic, especially in the current circumstances. I am satisfied that at this time the current arrangements, with complementary roles of political leadership from my Department and the Minister for Finance and the role which has been given to the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, in respect of the public service transformation agenda, serve us best. Were one to start to extricate all that, set up new departments and arrange for that to happen, it would take up a considerable amount of time that needs to be spent implementing the agreements to implement public service reforms.

As I said, there are sectoral agreements under the Croke Park agreement which need to be implemented. We are talking about bringing in a Civil Service board which would have a majority of private sector membership who would help drive that process on. Implementation of all of this must be done at local level between local management, workers and union representatives. Changes to rostering, the work practice issues and the reorganisation issues can best be dealt with at local level because there are different circumstances at local level. The broad parameters and the direction are set out in the transformation agreement. For that reason, we would not do what the Deputy suggests at this time.

Given the work programme in place and separating the budgetary functions of the Department of Finance from the wider performance, pay and administration functions would be an exercise that would be a very time consuming and would not use time to best effect given where we are in regard to an agreed agenda to proceed.

The Oireachtas commission is an independent commission but its budgets come from the Department of Finance. An interesting idea was put forward and I am not suggesting issues cannot be looked at. The Oireachtas Commission came out of an Oireachtas discussion that the Department of Finance was not sufficiently receptive or up-to-date with modern parliamentary needs and that we should have an independent commission which would have representation from the parties and that it should be given the responsibility to do the business. We now have a critique which says——

Maybe we have too much of a good thing.

It is a total waste of money.

There is nothing wrong with people coming to that view, if that is their experience. I was just stating the origins of the issue.

In respect of the wider issue of Dáil reform, I have always made the point that we all agree to Dáil reform in principle but when we get down to the practice, from an opposition point of view, it usually means how it can get more improvements from its side of the fence and from a Government point of view, it is about how it can ensure it gets its programme for Government through. It usually ends up in that space because many of the reforms we bring forward, which have an intrinsic merit, are often not time lined as set out in the Standing Orders. That is not a good practice for us when trying to bring about reforms.

If reforms are not implemented, as envisaged and agreed, by way of practice or traditions starting to build up and where everything is in place longer than was set out in the first place, it does not lend itself to building a consensus for further reform. I will leave it to the Chief Whip to answer the specifics of where it is at currently.

Will the Taoiseach tell us why he has not responded to the proposal to reduce the number of committees from 22 to 15 as a cost saving exercise——

Deputy Terence Flanagan has some questions.

——put forward by the cross-party commission.

Will Deputy Burton allow Deputy Terence Flanagan to ask some questions?

I was just asking the Taoiseach to give at least one answer.

I know but Deputy Burton has been asking questions from the start.

Thanks to the Chairman's intervention, I have not received any answers.

I welcome the Taoiseach and Minister of State, Deputy Curran, and their staff. There is a 19% increase in the Department of the Taoiseach's Vote this year in comparison to last year. Some 10% of that is related to administration costs. Will the Taoiseach outline what major new policy work he sees coming from his Department in the coming year? I pose that question given the current economic climate.

I refer to travel emissions off-setting payments. That amount has doubled which is obviously in line with increased travel. Perhaps the Taoiseach will comment on that.

I refer to the Government Information Service and related expenditure. That amount has increased by 78%. People are asking questions about that. Are we getting closer to an election given that increase? There is a media department in each Department. Clearly, there is duplication across all Departments. I believe the Taoiseach said he is in favour of centralising many of the media departments. It would be terrific if the Taoiseach could comment on that issue.

The figure for entertainment has gone up substantially. I would like the Taoiseach to answer these specific questions.

Let me respond to the Deputy's first point. The wind-up cost for the Moriarty tribunal is increasing as it goes on. That is the reason for the increase in the overall figure. It was provided for last year, but was not spent and it is being renewed this year. On the question of the running costs of the Department, obviously the final costs will not be known until the year end, but it is very likely that the final spending totals for 2010 will be much closer to the 2009 outturn and therefore lower than the published 2010 Estimate. I can illustrate this with specific examples. Let us look at maintenance and refurbishment. In the 2009 Estimate it is down as €350,000, the actual spend in 2009 was €215,000. The 2010 Estimate was €421,000, but the spend to the end of April this year was just €31,000. One must look at the outturn rather than the Estimate because we have had to shave off expenditure. Let us take the figures for furniture and fittings, for example, in the 2009 Estimate, the figure was €141,000 but the actual spend was €13,000. The 2010 Estimate has a figure under that heading of €71,000 but the actual spend to date to the end of April is nil. Similarly, the 2009 Estimate for entertainment was €454,000, but the actual spend in 2009 was €111,000 and the figure for the Estimate in 2010 is €400,000 but the spend to the end of April is €29,000. The reduction in spending is significant in those areas. The figures to which the Deputy refers are the Estimates, but the actual spend is what he should look at.

The estimated budget for 2010 was agreed in autumn 2009 when the Estimates were agreed. It came before the December budget and before the final spending outturn for 2009 was known, which becomes known early in the new year, after the end of the year in question. We then have what are called the Revised Estimates, which compare the 2010 Estimate with the 2009 outturn, as opposed to the Estimates for 2009, which was drawn up in autumn of that year. It can seem that spending is increasing when in fact it has been reduced significantly since 2008. This is unfortunate. The accounting presentation——

The presentation does not help.

The accounting presentation does not help. The Deputy quite correctly suggests that based on the figures he is looking at, there appears to be an increase in spending, but in actual fact there has been a reduction in spending when one compares the outturn in 2009 with the Estimate in 2010 and the actual spend to the end of April of this year. We are very conscious of the need to control these ancillary costs in the present circumstances. The spend confirms that.

What is the spend on the Government Information Service?

I dealt with this issue in parliamentary questions, but I will deal with it here. We looked at whether there was a cheaper way of doing this, and separating it out to Departments and we asked for tenders. The tenders that came back were more expensive than the way we are doing it at present. We have seconded some staff from other Departments and it is being paid for from some other Departments as well as the Department of the Taoiseach. I will give figures for the yearly breakdown of running costs for the communications unit for the three years from 2008. In 2008 it was €302,235; in 2009 it was €112,813; and for the first five months of 2010 from January to the end of May it is €51,493. That area of expenditure is being whittled down, the same as expenditure everywhere else.

Are there any more questions?

How many people are employed in the Government Information Service?

I do not have that information with me. I have answered parliamentary questions on that issue on at least three or four occasions.

What is the role of the staff in the Government Information Service? Do they work solely for the Department of the Taoiseach?

The Government Information Service provides Government information in an objective way to anybody who requests it.

In the context of the economic difficulties, has there been a review carried out of the supply of secretaries to former Taoisigh? I think there are four former Taoisigh. Given that they have very substantial State pensions in addition to State drivers, what is the argument for former Taoisigh having secretaries for a period longer than a year or two after they have stood down from the office of Taoiseach? I can understand——

The Deputy is not Taoiseach yet.

The Chair is promoting me.

I wonder if the Deputy's leader will do it?

Which former Taoiseach is it concentrated on?

The scheme covers the salary costs of secretarial assistants up to the maximum of the HEO standard scale. It is possible for a Taoiseach to employ two secretarial assistants for a period not exceeding five years from the date he or she was last Taoiseach. After the five-year period, one secretarial assistant may be employed. The initiative also includes provision for once off purchase of equipment necessary for that type of service. These secretarial assistants would be employed by the former Taoisigh and not by the Department of the Taoiseach. They are included under the Department's payroll but they are not employees of the Department. The rate of remuneration is up to a maximum of the standard HEO scale and the secretaries are not redeployed to the public service when their employment as secretarial assistance ends. They are taken on for that period as required.

Which former Taoisigh use that allowance?

The former Taoisigh have used the allowance. I do not see Mr. Cosgrave's name on the list but all other Taoisigh have used the allowance.

Has it been reviewed in the context of the economic difficulties?

The issue has arisen in terms of former Taoisigh being provided with secretarial assistance. That was provided to people who held that office in the past, as they require it.

In the current climate, is there a justifiable case for a sitting Deputy, who happens to be a former Taoiseach, who has secretarial resources——

——and a PA, being able to claim this allowance? The Taoiseach will see that the level of claims by his predecessor are significant. In terms of a review process, is there——

This is not an allowance. It is a payment made if one has a secretarial assistant who is not used for political or constituency duties. Members have a staff complement for political and constituency duties. This is separate from that in respect of secretarial assistance that former Taoisigh might require outside of that. It is not an allowance.

I know the point the Taoiseach is making. My point is very simple, in the current climate when one is a sitting Deputy and has two staff members, is it justifiable to have an allowance for staff and equipment?

The Deputy has made the point.

The former incumbent of that office has foregone his pension entitlements and so on in respect of his personal position. If secretarial assistance is required for duties other than political and constituency work, that is part of the establishment scheme we have provided for many years for Taoisigh.

Are there any questions on Vote 3, Office of the Attorney General?

The salaries of ordinary people have gone down considerably.

I understand that point. I wished to correct the record on the portrayal of his allowances.

We have seven minutes to conclude.

On Vote 3, what is the situation with regard to legacy lawsuits, arising particularly in the case of Anglo Irish Bank, which is now State-owned, and the relationship with the office of the Attorney General? I understand there are large numbers of legacy lawsuits in Anglo Irish Bank, some of which may be extremely costly. Does the Attorney General have any capacity for oversight or review, or is Anglo Irish Bank free to engage in lawsuits as it feels appropriate?

I thank the Taoiseach for his time. What is the situation with regard to contract legal advice in the office of the Attorney General? Is it still bringing in contractors and legal firms to assist with drafting laws, as happened in the past? What is the policy on that? Does the Taoiseach have a list of the legal firms involved and the levels of contract legal services they have been supplying to the Attorney General's office? I assume these services are mostly in the area of drafting, but perhaps they also provide opinions; I am not clear on this.

The question of lawsuits in Anglo Irish Bank could better be addressed to the Department of Finance. It is a detailed question. Obviously the bank will defend or prosecute its position depending on the circumstances, whether in its present form of public ownership or in private ownership, as in the past. That is a matter that will need to be dealt with on its merits based on the legal advice of the day. A more detailed question would best be put to the Minister for Finance, for whom the relationship framework exists. As members know, we expect the bank to deal with these matters properly as a commercial entity. It is not a question of our becoming involved in its day-to-day operation. A more detailed question to the Minister for Finance might elicit a more up-to-date and comprehensive answer.

Up to May 2010 the office engaged four consultant parliamentary counsel on a contract basis to assist in drafting legislation. The contract of one of these expired in May 2010 and the office plans to retain just three consultant parliamentary counsel in the future, in addition to its own staff. As the Deputy said, there are also occasions on which, due to the complexity of legislation or specialist knowledge required, Departments employ outside personnel, which is paid for in the normal way through the departmental Vote. In answer to the main question, the office of the Attorney General has three people under contract apart from its own staff.

We will move on to Vote 4, Central Statistics Office.

I address my question to the Government Chief Whip. In a parliamentary question on gathering information by the Central Statistics Office through the census, I asked the Minister of State's predecessor whether a special question would be included as to whether a household contained a person with a disability and, if so, what type of disability. There is a total lack of information available about, for example, how many people in the State suffer from autism, so if the Government is developing policies with regard to education or health facilities, it is extremely difficult to know exactly how many people are involved. The then Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, said he would contact the Central Statistics Office and perhaps ask it to send representatives to attend a meeting of the committee to discuss the preparation of the census form, but this has not happened. I know it is now too late for the 2011 census, but there will be another opportunity to address the situation.

I ask the Minister of State to arrange for a representative of the CSO to come before this or another appropriate committee to discuss this issue, which is frequently raised with me by constituents and others outside my constituency — people who are genuinely interested in dealing with autism and so on. I fail to see why a simple question such as this is not included. We hear all sorts of excuses, but there is no logic to it. I urge the Minister of State to try to ensure that such a question is included for the future and, if necessary, to ask the CSO to send a representative to appear before the committee to discuss this issue.

My question is about external IT service provision, the budget for which has increased from €1.2 million to €4.4 million this year. I ask the Minister to explain this.

People fill in the census form when they are at home on a certain date — 3 or 30 April was mentioned. During the last census, many people were away at a Munster game on the night the forms were to be filled in. The Minister of State might consider methods to ensure all citizens are taken account of.

I have noted a change in the live register figures. Up to some time ago the regional figures were released together with the total figures; now they are released five days or one week later. I suggest they be released at the same time, so that we can have a global and an individual figure. This is something that might be considered.

I accept Deputy O'Donnell's final comment. The CSO gives historical outputs but it also gives indications of anticipated publications and so forth. Thus, there are targets.

I appreciate that. The CSO does very good work.

Deputy Flanagan asked about the IT external services budget. That is part of the programme for the census. The figures for the CSO, in general terms, reflect the fact that some of its work is cyclical; it does not do the same work year after year. The census is a quite substantial part of that cycle, so the figures are somewhat skewed in these years.

Deputy Barrett asked about the possibility of including a question on disability and autism on the census form. His point is correct; the horse has bolted in the sense that the papers are being printed, but the issue was addressed. A specific census advisory subgroup was convened to consider a question on disability for the 2011 census form, composed of representatives from the National Disability Authority, the Equality Authority, the Disability Federation of Ireland and the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. The proposal to list specific disabilities within the disability question — namely, to make specific reference to autism spectrum disorder and Down's syndrome in the category of learning or intellectual disability — was considered at the second meeting of the group, but the group concluded that it would not be appropriate, nor would there be enough room on the census form to list all individual disabilities. However, to go some way towards accommodating the request, the existing category of learning or intellectual disability was split into two categories — intellectual disability and difficulty with learning, remembering or concentrating — for testing in the pilot. The group felt this approach narrowed the categories and thus helped to address the issue of autism while allowing the question to remain as inclusive as possible. Without going into it, there are two broad questions and then the sub-questions that emerge from that.

The CSO in consultation with the census advisory group finalised its analysis of the results of the pilot. It had the advisory and consultation first and did the pilot. Based on the pilot, it finalised its analysis in October 2009. The analysis indicated that the revised questions on disability tested in the pilot were successful and, accordingly, should be recommended for inclusion in the 2011 census questionnaire. The Government in its decision in December 2009 agreed with the recommendations of the census advisory group on the topics to be included, and specifically those. While the issue may not have been discussed at this committee it is one of those to be included.

Before the Minister of State moves away from that point——

Just let me finish and I will come back to the Deputy because I do not want to forget the question Deputy O'Donnell asked. There is provision in the census for people who are absent on the night whether at rugby or whatever event might be taking place.

The Minister of State read out a list of people who were consulted.

One group that was not consulted was the Oireachtas. Very often information can be gathered through public representatives who meet people every day of the week. In any sample case or study the Oireachtas should be consulted as a group for its opinion. I understand——

There is another committee.

There is not another committee.

Are there any questions on Vote 13 — Office of the Chief State Solicitor, and Vote 14 — Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

I thank the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, and their officials for assisting the committee in its consideration of the revised Estimates and the output statement.

This concludes the select committee's consideration of the revised estimates and the annual output statement 2010.

Barr
Roinn