Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Sub-Committee on Finance díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jan 2014

Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners (Revised)

Apologies have been received from Deputy Alan Farrell. No. 1 on our agenda is the consideration of the Department of Finance group of Revised Estimates. The Dáil ordered on 18 December 2013 that the following Revised Estimates for the public services be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance; Vote 8 - Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 9 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners; and Vote 10 - Office of the Appeal Commissioners.

I welcome the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the supplementary performance information regarding the outputs and impacts on the programme expenditure. A draft timetable for the meeting has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement and we can proceed from there.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the select sub-committee today in connection with the 2014 Estimates for my Department and for the offices under the ambit of my Department, including the Revenue Commissioners, the Appeal Commissioners and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I record my thanks to all the officials at the Department who worked together to continue to meet all the demands placed on them in 2013, including delivering a very successful Presidency agenda, introducing a budget under the new European cycle, positively interacting with the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and managing the elements of the troika programme to leave the country in a position where we could successfully exit the three year EU-IMF programme of financial support, an economic transformation that allows us to remain unique, at this stage, in the EU and eurozone.

The Department has achieved important objectives during the year in a number of policy areas as targeted in the Statement of Strategy 2011-2014. Our success in achieving these objectives was facilitated, in large part, by changes in how we worked. This included the development of an integrated business planning process, which ensured resources were directed towards key priorities, the filling of senior appointments and a focus on training and development to ensure staff are appropriately skilled to meet the challenges. This thrust will continue during 2014.

We are committed to increasing transparency and openness, including regular reporting against targets, and outreach to our national and international stakeholders to better inform our policy development. The statistics bear this out. During 2013, my Department received 5,866 parliamentary questions, processed 220 freedom of information requests and processed 302 Government memos. In addition, my Department facilitated a number of consultation fora to extend the scope of our external interfaces.

In line with this we have enhanced our communications strategy, launched a renewed website, and are publishing more of our policy papers and discussion documents, including detailed analysis on the effects of the pharma-cliff, an international tax strategy, and a report on the research and development tax credit review, with the goal of ensuring the Department's message reaches a wider audience and generates informed debate. The report card that we update weekly has proven a very useful means of communicating effectively with both the public and professionals interested in our continuing progress.

Before we commence our discussion of the 2014 Estimates, I would like, if I may, to touch briefly on the key outputs of the Department during 2013.

Looking briefly at initiatives in the banking sector, 2013, it is worth remembering, saw the delivery of a number of policy initiatives as well as a reduction in the State's exposure to the banking sector. During the year, my Department extinguished the eligible liabilities guarantee, the so-called bank guarantee, which has generated some €4.3 billion in fees and income for the State. My Department also returned some €4.5 billion to the State, through the successful sale of Irish Life, along with an additional dividend, the sale of contingent capital, CoCo, notes and preference shares in Bank of Ireland, both of which were sold at a slight profit. In addition, the entry of IBRC into special liquidation enabled a restructuring of the promissory notes, with associated benefits for the Exchequer.

We have seen the State, through the NTMA and the banks themselves, successfully access the international capital markets through bonds and, in the case of the banks, covered bonds and securitisations, at lower margin premia that reflect the significant progress that has been made. Across the broader financial landscape, legislation has been introduced promoting reform of the credit union sector with the establishment of the ReBo, NewERA was established and legislation to establish the strategic investment fund has commenced and will continue to be a focus during 2014.

The Government recognises that SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy and play a crucial role in employment growth. A key priority of the Government is to ensure an adequate pool of credit is available to fund SMEs in the real economy. In terms of bank lending, both AIB and Bank of Ireland had a €4 billion lending target in 2013. The recent Red C demand survey indicates that the banks are approving 80% of credit applications, which is in line with their European counterparts. For those businesses which have their credit applications turned down, the Credit Review Office continues to provide a vital service and is overturning 55% of bank refusal decisions. I increased the CRO appeals threshold from €500,000 to €3 million in budget 2014 to ensure a broader range of SMEs could utilise this facility.

The access to finance chapter of Action Plan for Jobs 2013 contained a number of commitments to assist the SME sector, which the SME State bodies group, chaired by my Department, has overseen to completion. These included the monitoring and implementation of the ten point tax plan for the SME sector; the recruitment of additional reviewers to the CRO; and the establishment by the National Pensions Reserve Fund of three SME funds to make €850 million available through the provision of equity, credit, and restructuring investment. In addition to some positive developments in the area of bank lending, the Red C survey also indicated that 2013 saw an increase in the levels of employment, profitability and turnover in the SME sector and I will strive to ensure these positive trends continue into 2014 and beyond.

Attracting increased flows of funding from capital market and institutional investors and effectively channelling it towards long-term investment and the SME sector must be a core policy priority for Europe. This is why we made non-bank funding a key policy priority of our recent EU Presidency. The Secretary General of my Department was appointed co-chair of the Commission's high level expert group on SMEs and infrastructure financing. The group‘s final report, Finance for Growth, contains a broad suite of recommendations for European policymakers that are designed to diversify funding for SMEs. Ensuring viable SMEs have access to a stable supply of credit is also a central element of the medium-term economic strategy. In particular, the strategy outlines the importance of developing a more diversified and stable financial system. Such a system must be premised on a competitive and profitable banking sector and increased direct capital market financing of enterprises, including SMEs, with greater involvement by institutional investors, multilateral banks and alternative financial markets.

Another area in which we made progress, and where it will be important to make even further significant progress this year is the problem of mortgage arrears. A comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem is in place and the implementation of this strategy is of prime importance. In that regard, the new personal insolvency system and the full implementation of the Central Bank mortgage arrears resolution targets, MART, process are fundamental. As statutory regulator, the Central Bank has the power, from both a prudential and consumer protection perspective, to require banks to address mortgage arrears cases on their books meaningfully. It will no longer be acceptable for banks to apply short-term solutions to cases where there has been a fundamental and long-term change in the position of the borrower. Durable long-term restructures will have to be applied, having regard to the circumstances of individual cases. The mortgage arrears data for the end of November 2013 in respect of the six MART banks, published by my Department on 9 January, show there is an increasing number of permanent restructures being put in place by banks. However, it will be necessary for banks to build on this significantly in 2014. The fact that the new insolvency frameworks, in particular the personal insolvency arrangement framework to address unsustainable mortgages or other secured debt, are operational should provide a further incentive to banks to move to address the mortgage problem in a definitive way this year.

My Department also took a lead role in the roll out of the national payments plan. This plan, which was approved by the Government in April 2013 and is overseen by the Central Bank, aims at making savings of up to €1 billion annually to the economy by increasing the use of electronic forms of payment such as debit cards and electronic banking. The year 2013 saw a number of initiatives under this umbrella, including a rounding trial to test public reaction to removing 1 and 2 cent coins from change. This trial was undertaken over two months, up to mid-November, and the Central Bank is finalising a report on the outcome, which I expect to receive shortly.

The project team also launched eDay, the date in September 2014 when Departments and agencies will discontinue the use of cheques in their dealings with businesses. A pilot project was undertaken to test reaction to a standard bank account, which would be attractive to the financially excluded, and the Government has recently published a paper on the outcome of this project.

A major initiative at the European level is the single European payments area, SEPA. This comes into effect from 1 February 2014 and will considerably ease cross-border payments between EU countries, providing a major incentive to increased business activity. Members will be aware that the European Commission has published a proposal to allow an additional six months transitional period for all payments, up to 1 August 2014. Agreement of the European Council and of the European Parliament to this proposal is awaited.

Ireland held the 7th Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union between January and June of last year and the Department of Finance played a lead role in many areas of what was widely acknowledged to have been a very successful Presidency. I presided over six formal ECOFIN Councils and one highly successful informal ECOFIN in Dublin. The Presidency had significant achievements in its engagement with the European Parliament and with the European institutions. Running a successful Presidency has helped improve the relationship between Ireland and Europe and its institutions which we can build on to improve further Ireland's influence in Europe.

In terms of achievements, agreement was reached on a number of important dossiers. In economics, the final part of the economic governance measures for the eurozone, the two-pack regulation, was agreed, and we successfully managed the European semester process. These are important in ensuring financial stability in the eurozone. In financial services, we prioritised work on the banking union proposals designed to break the link between the financial sector and the sovereign. The main achievements were agreement on the capital requirements directive and regulation, the single supervisory mechanism and banking recovery and resolution.

There was also agreement on a range of other financial services dossiers, for example, the regulation on markets in financial instruments, MiFIR and the markets in financial instruments directive, MiFID.

In taxation we obtained a decision on enhanced co-operation to allow for discussion on the financial transaction tax. Anti-fraud measures were agreed for VAT. There was agreement on Council conclusions to combat fraud and tax evasion and on adoption of a negotiating mandate on savings taxation agreements agreed for third countries. My Department also significantly contributed to work on the multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020, achieved agreements on other EU budget measures and set the stage for further budget discussions during the Lithuanian Presidency.

The year 2013 represented another significant stage on our road to economic recovery. Although economic data from the first half of last year were somewhat disappointing, recent figures have been more encouraging. The economy returned to growth in the second quarter of 2013 and the Central Statistics Office quarterly national accounts released before Christmas show that in quarter 3, GDP grew by 1.5% in quarterly terms. Revisions to the data also show a stronger second quarter, with plus 1% quarter-on-quarter than previously estimated. In year-on-year terms, GDP grew by 1.7% in the third quarter of the year. Overall, the figures are in line with the budget forecast of modest growth of 0.2% last year, with growth expected to pick up to 2% this year.

Given the open nature of the Irish economy, our economic performance is heavily reliant on external developments. Private consumption still fell in year-on-year terms in the third quarter of 2013 but exports rose. The growth in exports occurred in spite of the patent cliff in the pharmaceutical sector, which is still impacting merchandise exports. However, the effect on employment is likely to be limited. The domestic economy growth, in particular recent growth in construction, is welcome. Labour market performance has been positive recently and appears to have de-coupled from GDP. Employment in the third quarter increased by 1.2% or 22,500 relative to quarter 2 of 2013, marking a fourth successive increase in quarter-on-quarter terms. As a result, employment in the third quarter of last year was 3.2% or 58,000 persons higher than in the same quarter of 2012. This is the largest annual increase since quarter 3 of 2007.

Ireland exited the EU-IMF programme of financial support on 15 December and did so without the need for a prearranged backstop. Our exit from the programme is the result of the commitment and determination of the people to get the job done. The programme has met its key objectives, namely, to put the public finances back on a sustainable path, to restore financial sector feasibility, to return Ireland to financial market funding and to raise growth potential. The economy is recovering, the public finances are under control, the banking system is restructured and well-capitalised and, most important, jobs are being created. Market confidence in Ireland is high and we made a full return to normal market funding earlier this month. This is an important milestone on Ireland's recovery and will send a further signal that Ireland is recovering, returning to normal market funding and building for a sustainable future.

The recently published December Exchequer returns saw tax revenues grow by 3.2% year on year. Strong income tax receipts from PAYE workers and the self-employed are encouraging and are consistent with recent data on the recovering labour market. Additionally, expenditure remains below profile in most Departments. These returns give confidence that, once again, Ireland will meet and indeed better its fiscal target in 2013.

Looking to the future, budget 2014 targeted a general government deficit of 4.8% of GDP. While all the targets under the excessive deficit procedure have been met to date, 2014 will be the first year we will be actively seeking to overachieve the target. This overachievement will form a prudent buffer to allow for any possible external shocks to the economy and will reassure the markets of Ireland's steadfast commitment to restoring the sustainability of the public finances.

Within the Department we established a risk and stability unit, which is responsible for monitoring internal and external risks and proposing corrective action as appropriate. In light of our emergence from the EU-IMF programme, we are keen to remain vigilant, learn the lessons from the past and continue to embed a risk-focused culture within the Department. The work of this unit as well as related changes to the governance structures of the Department will ensure my Department maintains a balanced approach towards developments, nationally and internationally, as they occur.

The business of the committee today relates to the funding allocation sought for the Department of Finance group of Votes. For 2014 this totals €358 million and compares with a 2013 Vote group total of €362 million. Of this, some €31 million relates to Vote 7, which provides for the administrative and non-administrative costs of the Department of Finance, a reduction of €2 million compared with 2013. This arises largely because 2013 contained once-off costs relating to the EU Presidency.

Almost 60% or €19.2 million of the gross Estimate for my Department is provided to cover salaries and allowances, with a further €4 million to cover facilities and non-pay administrative costs. A large portion of this relates to over 70 of the total complement of staff who work in shared services, that is, payroll, pension, banking and financial management services to other Departments. We expect to see these costs reduce in the coming years as these services transition to the shared services Vote. My Department has utilised economies of scale in these areas, delivered significant savings to date and worked within a prudent budget in 2013.

The remainder of the gross Estimate is provided to enable the Department to widen its engagements at an international level, to be proactive in addressing policy issues and to secure a robust banking system and economic climate. The focus will be on providing support and expertise to continue the policy of promoting domestic lending, analysis of the property market and developments within the international financial services sector, a review of which is taking place that the Department has been asked to lead.

Vote 8, the budget of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, is applied towards a single programme with the following outputs: auditing the financial statements of public bodies and issuing audit opinions; control of issues from the Central Fund; and examining and reporting on financial management arrangements in public bodies and the value for money of public services. The committee will be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General also assists the Committee of Public Accounts in it scrutiny of the public finances.

Vote 9, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, has requested a budget allocation of €320 million, a reduction of 2% compared with the 2013 allocation of €323 million. The year 2013 saw the successful implementation of the local property tax, the largest self-assessment system in Ireland to date. The 2013 LPT compliance rate currently stands at 91%, with €242 million collected in respect of 2013 and €76 million collected in respect of 2014.

Revenue achieved similar high levels of compliance for the other taxes and duties which are placed in its care and management, while also providing a high quality customer service to facilitate taxpayers in meeting their tax obligations. It extended its range of digital services for compliant businesses, for example, the new diesel rebate system, met broader environmental changes, such as the single euro payments area introduction, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on business. However, non-compliance is an ever-present challenge for Revenue and significant resources are now deployed to target risk throughout all sections of the economy. Through targeted and risk-focused compliance interventions, Revenue continued to pursue those who do not meet their tax and duty obligations.

To detect those involved in tax evasion, shadow economy and smuggling activities Revenue used "big data" and innovative technology such as social network analysis and predictive analytics. It is important to underline the crucial role played by an effective and modern tax and customs administration in achieving the Government's fiscal consolidation programme and Ireland's exit from the bailout and, in this regard, I would like to commend Revenue for their achievements in 2013.

I thank members for their attention and I commend the Estimates for the finance group of Votes to the committee.

I thank the Minister. Shall we move into opening statements or will we proceed with the estimates? Which would members prefer?

I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement and welcome him and his officials here today for the Estimates meeting.

In his statement the Minister strongly emphasised the positives and there have been positive events in the past 12 months, principally the exit from the troika programme, the National Treasure Management Agency's, NTMA, recent access to the markets, the progress in the public finances and the quarter three figures for employment from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, are particularly positive. There is, however, also a negative side and the country faces significant risks under several headings that the Minister covered in his opening statement. He painted quite a rosy picture on banking whereas several market participants have announced their departure from Ireland. There is a significant lack of competition in banking for personal customers and for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, and even among the banks that the State owns, both Permanent TSB, PTSB, and AIB await approval from the European Commission of their restructuring plans.

There is the major outstanding issue of the liquidation of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, and we await a comprehensive update on how that process is going and what the net impact will be for taxpayers once the loan portfolios are sold on or transferred into the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. There was no reference to the lack of progress on implementing the agreement made at the June 2012 summit to separate bank debt from national sovereign debt.

The Minister referred to the mortgage arrears crisis and there are signs of increased activity within the banks to try to deal with that problem but progress is far too slow. We need to see greater emphasis on rolling out long-term restructuring of mortgages that are in difficulty. People who need to access the new insolvency service encounter very real difficulty in doing so because of the fees being charged by the personal insolvency practitioners, PIPs, and when their own income levels fall below the guidelines issued as part of that process. NAMA was not discussed although its stress tests for the banks will come up this year. The Department faces major challenges and there are challenges on the wider economic front in 2014. I look forward to discussing the Estimates with the Minister and his officials.

I welcome the Chairman, the Minister and his officials to our first meeting of 2014. I hope they had a nice break before facing into the challenges that 2014 presents. Deputy Michael McGrath touched on many of these and there are probably more, including ones that have not yet been identified but will raise their heads over 2014. When we gather here in 2015 we will have to have seen big progress in four key areas. I do not wish to deny any of the other issues affecting NAMA’s stress testing of the banks but there are four issues on which the Department, and the Minister as its driver, need to see big progress. First is the mortgage arrears crisis. It is deeply depressing and frustrating that we are so far into a financial crisis, with the collapse of property prices and the number of people in mortgage arrears, yet the latest figures from the Department of Finance show that 83% of people in arrears have not received a long-term sustainable offer. That is not acceptable and should have been resolved long before now. I engage with the banks as an Opposition spokesperson and it is clear that the energy does not exist within them to resolve the crisis. We cannot continue to drag our heels down this road. There are far too many families looking for solutions. It is important not only for them, for their financial situation and mental health, but also for the banks themselves. The stress tests may pose a major challenge for those institutions later on this year.

The second point is the need for real growth in the economy. The growth projections put forward by the Department of Finance, since the Minister took office almost three years ago, have not all been met. The original growth projections for where this economy should be today have not been met. My analysis is that the austerity policy of this Government has strangled the potential for growth. I am conscious that external factors in respect of our trading partners have also had a major impact. We can refer to the statistics and projections in 2011 for growth last year which simply have not materialised. Any bit of growth is to be welcomed. We need to grab it with both hands. If we were to turn back the clock a couple of years and project the levels of growth, unemployment, long-term unemployment, emigration, mortgage arrears that we have today I do not believe we would have followed the policy direction that was followed because the consequences are too great.

The third area in which we need to see major progress is the national debt. The key point is to ensure that we have an outcome from the agreement made at that famous June summit to separate bank and sovereign debt. It is my view, and I hope I will be proved wrong, that the Minister is giving up the ghost on that agreement and that it is more likely that the Department’s policy agenda is to make the banks as profitable as they can be, which involves not writing off debt, increasing fees and what not, and trying to get some external partner to buy into the banks, instead of fulfilling the commitment of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, to pay the money back to the State that we put into it as a result of our decision to save the rest of the European banking system from the contagion.

Many Government spokespersons have painted a rosy picture of what is to be presented in budget 2015 but unless I am wrong the Minister still plans to take €1 billion from this year’s budget. The one simple thing that has been missing from this process is fairness. There are ways, as we have shown each year, to reduce the deficit to the required amount but to do so in a fair manner that would sustain growth. Those issues, mortgage distress, growth in the economy, the national debt and banking, and fairness need to be resolved.

This year this committee and the Department will hopefully face the challenge of the banking inquiry. I am sure that many people are deeply frustrated that we have not had one heretofore. My stated position, and that of our party, is that the public really wants those who were involved in inappropriate behaviour to be held accountable before the courts, not before this committee. There has lately been some movement in that direction and justice will take its course. It is deeply worrying that two of the eight documents on the recapitalisation of the banks have gone missing in the Department of Finance. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that. We are here considering the Estimates for the Department and I am not casting any aspersions on the staff in that Department because I have seen their work in dealing with the challenges facing the State. However, over a period of two months before the bank guarantee and four months after that only eight items of communication passed between the governors or chairpersons of the covered institutions and the Minister for Finance, two of which have disappeared or cannot be found.

The only reason we know those two cannot be found is that the document was requested under the freedom of information provisions on two separate occasions. I worry about documents that were never requested under freedom of information. If the journalist in 2009 had never requested that document and if I had not made a freedom of information request for the correspondence between the governors and chairpersons of the banks and the Minister for Finance during that period those documents would simply not have seen the light of day and they would not have been recorded. I ask the Minister to explain to the committee how documents of that nature could go missing.

We are dealing with the Estimates now.

The Estimates deal with staff and human resources.

I have given Deputy Doherty a lot of latitude but we have agreed a programme for this afternoon under which we will discuss specific headings. If he wishes to speak on those headings I will facilitate him, but his contribution must be germane to the proceedings.

I appreciate that point. However, this an opening statement but the opening statement by the Minister-----

The Deputy should not ask questions if he is a making a statement. We are not engaging in a question-and-answer session.

We understand there was a bid from an external agent to take over Bank of Ireland a number of weeks after this State, through the Minister for Finance, announced a recapitalisation of €3.5 billion for that bank but before the recapitalisation took place. We will deal with figures later in the meeting but it is very important that those documents are located or returned.

I am not questioning the importance of the issue the Deputy raises but I am saying they are not germane to this afternoon's proceedings. I ask him to speak on the Estimates. I assure the Deputy I will be equally strict with the Minister when he responds. I ask members to speak on the matters on the agenda.

I challenge that, and I will explain why. It is a point that needs to be raised. The Estimates will show staff and training costs and expenditure on processes and procedures. If two documents relating to the recapitalisation of a bank which cost the State €3.5 billion have gone missing in the Department whose Estimates we are considering, if this is not a matter which is germane-----

Deputy Doherty has been a Member of the House long enough to know that there are a dozen different facilities to allow him discuss the issues he wishes to raise. We are discussing the Estimates at this meeting. We will deal with any issues about the Department's operation and budgeting. If Deputy Doherty wishes to discuss those documents under this committee's auspices, I accommodated all his requests last year. For example, he changed his mind about one of his requests and I changed the agenda to facilitate him. If he wishes to request that this issue be raised I will accommodate him, but I ask him not to say, please, that I am shutting him down when I ask him to desist from raising an issue. I am not shutting him down and I have never shut down a debate in this committee. I ask that we return to dealing with today's agenda. If the Deputy wishes to include matters in other agendas I will try to accommodate him.

I appreciate that and I acknowledge that the Chairman has always been fair. However, it is my genuine belief that this is an issue because as we consider the budget for the Department of Finance in greater detail, including training and human resources costs, we need to know if there is a need for additional resources such as additional IT facilities in order to ensure that no sensitive key documents about very important decisions for this State could be misplaced within the Department. It is a relevant concern. I have said my piece.

Not at this stage, as I want to move on to deal with the headings. Those contributions were opening statements and we are not having a question-and-answer session at this stage.

The first opening statement was a series of questions, all of which deserve replies.

Yes, I know. I suggest the Minister can deal with the questions when making his concluding remarks. Otherwise, we will never get started on dealing with the Estimates.

We have agreed a schedule for dealing with the headings. Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance, relates to pages four to 28 in the briefing document.

I will deal first with programme A under administrative subheads 1 to 8. I invite comments or questions.

I have a number of comments about the administration subheads. Expenditure on travel and subsistence has increased by 19%; expenditure on post and telecommunications has increased by 36%; and expenditure on consultancy and other services has increased from €25,000 to €112,000. A percentage increase of zero is given, but I do not understand how that reflects the figures, which show an increase. I ask the Minister to shed some light on this expenditure. I note the explanations provided in the document with regard to travel and subsistence expenditure, which is broken down under costs such as ministerial drivers, activities related to EU and World Bank business and other miscellaneous travel. It amounts to an increase of nearly €130,000, which equates to 19%. Ireland held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union last year and many meetings were held here. I expect the Minister and departmental officials had to travel to attend numerous meetings, but it seems that the expected travel expenditure is quite substantial.

The figure for miscellaneous and incidental expenditure has decreased by 4%. However, the provisional outturn shows an increase of €120,000, which means it is intended to spend more this year than was spent last year. I understand this is due to upskilling and training and development for members of staff and also website development costs. How many staff have been involved in this training to date? The Minister explained that the pressure of work on the Irish Presidency last year meant that many staff were unable to participate in training courses at that time. I ask the Minister to comment on that point.

I have a query about the expenditure on consultancy services, which has increased from €25,000 to €112,000. I refer to page ten, which shows that the provisional outturn on this expenditure was zero in 2012 and 2013, meaning there was no expenditure on consultancy. Has a contract been provided to some consultant for €112,000? It would seem that the clear beneficiaries are the consultants under every single administrative heading. I note expenditure on consultancy services under headings A, B, C, D and E of more than €5.1 million. The consultancy costs incurred by Irish Water are the news of the day. I ask how the Department of Finance believes it needs to spend more on consultancy this year than in previous years.

On a point of clarification, are we dealing with administrative subheads 1 to 8 and then dealing with each programme?

Yes. We are dealing with the administrative subheads, after which we will deal with programmes A1 and A3 and B1, B3 and B4.

The travel and subsistence expenditure relates to all the Department's travel costs undertaken by Ministers, Ministers of State and officers of the Department, and includes ministerial drivers, involvement in EU activities generally, including the ECOFIN Councils, travel to World Bank and other International Monetary Fund meetings and other miscellaneous travel costs. The Estimates for 2013 and 2014 reflect the Department's increased interaction at European level. Our strategic target is to enhance engagement with external stakeholders and to improve our influence with relevant ministries, potential investors, rating agencies and so on. We are undertaking an increased EU workload in the financial services area.

Some of the additional external engagement was achieved in tandem with the Presidency meetings during the course of 2013. The additional costs were not as I anticipated for 2014, because travel costs relating to the Presidency were captured under the Presidency subhead for 2013, while they are under the travel and subsidence subhead for 2014.

The administrative consultancies subhead, which is projected at €112,000 for 2014, relates to a particular human resources issue. For privacy reasons, the issue itself must remain confidential, but I can say that it is non-recurring. In other words, it is a once-off human resources issue for which that sum has been set aside to settle it.

I appreciate that when we are dealing with human resources we cannot go into the detail. However, the allocation falls under the consultancy category. Has a contract been awarded to a consultancy firm to deal with it, or is it included in a quantum of money for dealing with the particular human resource issue within the Department?

It is a quantum of money that is there to deal with the human resource issue. It is an issue that is foreseeable and is almost resolved to the point at which an estimate of costs can be put on it. However, because it is to do with personnel, it is confidential in nature. It is a once-off charge in 2014 and will not recur.

Will it present itself in salary costs in future years?

We can provide details to the Deputy on a confidential basis.

We will move on to programme A, European Union and international policy. There are three subheads: A1, administration - pay; A2, administration - non-pay; and A3, consultancy and other services. We will also deal with the key outputs, output targets and context and impact indicators. Are there are any issues arising under subheads A1, A2 or A3?

On subhead A3, will the Minister indicate what accounts for the increase from €425,000 to €720,000?

That allocation applies to the economic planning initiative. Under international postings there is a figure of €220,000, and the total comes out at €720,000.

Does the figure of €350,000 paid to consultants relate to the drawing up the of the medium-term economic strategy document that was released before Christmas? Does it come under the economic planning initiative?

Following the publication of the medium-term economic strategy the Department of Finance will need to co-ordinate and implement actions and projects arising out of the plan. The provision is allocated across the two subdivisions that will lead the project. It represents the implementation costs of the economic strategy - that is, the cost of actually carrying out the work.

It falls under the category of consultancy and other services. As such, the question arises of who is carrying out this work. It seems to be the case that these are external services and will not be done within the Department. If departmental staff were undertaking the work, the costs would come under salary costs and be included under a programme. This allocation, however, comes under consultancy and other services. Will the Minister clarify that?

It will be done by a mix of staff in the Department working with outside assistance, if such assistance is necessary. Provision is being made for the possibility of external assistance. The Deputy will appreciate that the amounts allocated are quite small. There is no point in bringing forward economic strategy documents if there is not the wherewithal to implement them. That is what is being done here.

One of the outputs to be achieved under programme A is to address how the Oireachtas engages with other European parliaments and the Union itself, particularly in regard to the European semester, a module of which will take place next week in Brussels. This is not directly tied to the Minister as a line Department issue, but the role of this sub-committee is tied to the Department in many ways. One of the criticisms that was made of the Government prior to our entering the bailout programme was the evidence of what might be described as a level of disconnectedness with Europe, including poor attendance records at EU meetings by Irish parliamentarians and officials. We have now exited the bailout programme. Looking at the outputs, cognisance is given to the need to maintain a centre-of-Europe approach in dealing with these issues. How does the Minister see that materialising and what are the nuts and bolts of the strategy?

We have moved over the three-year period to which the Chairman refers from sovereigns in the eurozone being de facto in charge of their own budgetary systems to a situation in which there is a fiscal union and the various requirements of the six-pack, two-pack, excessive deficit procedures and European semesters, all of which require compliance. That compliance requirement is met, in the first instance, by the relevant Departments and, in particular, the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. There is then a reporting system to the Commission, with the latter assessing whether a sovereign has complied with the conditions of the various new arrangements. The Commission then brings its assessment to be placed on the agenda of ECOFIN. I often meet with the sub-committee prior to ECOFIN meetings to discuss where we are at and where we are going. There is an opportunity for the sub-committee at that stage to have an input into the process.

One of the significant changes that has taken place as we exit the bailout programme is that we are now into the stability treaty proper. We are a functioning member state that is not in a bailout programme. Country-specific recommendations will be issued to us as part of that, very much based upon what is best for the country and what might be decided in that regard. Those recommendations are addressed to the Irish Parliament for discussion, not just at Government level but in terms of the entire Parliament engaging with the process. Does the Minister envisage a role for this sub-committee, working with the Department, to provide some of that input?

Yes, I do. In the case of the excessive deficit procedure, to give a practical example, our commitment is to get under 3% by 2015. It is regarded across the eurozone that a deficit is in excess if it is over 3% of GDP. We are getting into the mainstream, therefore, once we get under 3%. If at any stage there was a drift above that - say, for example, as a consequence of budgetary procedures or internal or external events, we brought in a deficit of 3.5% in 2017 - then we must report that to the Commission and the latter will evaluate it and put it on the agenda at ECOFIN. The Commission would state that this country was in excess and would also make country-specific recommendations as to how we could rectify the situation. My intention would be to signal the situation in that regard in advance of ECOFIN meetings to the Chairman and the clerk so that members could discuss it at the sub-committee in advance of the meeting. As it stands, I have an agreement to meet the sub-committee four times per year.

Thank you, Minister.

In regard to the administration category, we have mentioned the training that is ongoing within the Department, recruitment of officials and so on. This is one of the areas that was flagged up in terms of the Department not being fit for purpose at the time of the crash - that we did not have the necessary skills mix among staff. Given what the Minister has said at previous meetings about what has been achieved in this regard, I am grappling with the figures relating to consultancy and other services, which are there in black and white. We have been told that the provision of this programme in 2014 covers "consultancy and other costs associated with EU and international policy". In fact, €350,000 is being spent on consultancy and other services for the purposes of exploring options to improve the growth potential of the economy in order to reduce the level of unemployment.

In view of the fact that there are now so many economists in the Department of Finance, why are we still obliged to outsource this type of work? Why are we setting aside a total of €720,000 - ten times what was spent last year - for consultancy and other services? It appears that €350,000 will be spent on consultancies. Will the Minister indicate, in the context of other services, what the international assignee programme on which €100,000 is being spent involves? It is indicated that the Department of Finance is paying for two officials to serve at the IMF and the EBRD. Are these permanent positions and will the €120,000 allocated be spent each year?

A further €150,000 is allocated for the transformational project within the Department. The Minister states that this money will be used to develop improved governance, risk and compliance frameworks, undertake business process re-engineering and develop and improve work flows and controls. This goes to the heart of what I said earlier and in respect of which the Chair challenged me. Does what is involved relate to recording the receipt of documents within the Department, etc.? There is a one-line explanation provided for a spend of €150,000. Will the Minister provide some further detail?

Departments tend to be generalist in nature. It would not be possible to retain on an in-house basis all the necessary levels of expertise that might potentially be required, particularly in respect of once-off functions. When, for example, we dealt with the arrangements relating to the promissory notes, there was a great deal of expertise in-house and there was also much expertise in the Central Bank. Expertise is required elsewhere as well. A matter such as the liquidation of IBRC would not be something which would usually come across the desks of the relevant civil servants in the Department. Again, it was necessary to seek external expertise. In addition, legal advice is included under the various consultancy headings. We require such advice from time to time. There are very tricky issues that arise in respect of the banks, in particular, and we must also defend cases taken against us. Many cases are taken against the Department. Some of these are dropped before they reach the courts but others go all the way to the courts. There is a constant process.

If we moved to an alternative model and argued that all expertise should be retained in-house, then we would have on the payroll any number of people on whose services we would only be occasionally obliged to call during the course of a year. This would mean that the Department would be carrying a great deal of dead weight. The model is to have general practitioners who are good at a range of things operating in Departments on a day-to-day basis. If, however, it is necessary to call upon some very specialised expertise, then it is hired in. It is sometimes not possible to know in advance when such expertise might be required. That is why I cannot indicate, in explicit terms, the areas in respect of which it will be necessary to consult in 2014. We are, therefore, making a provision on the basis of historic data. If that provision is required, we will spend it. If it is not required, then there will be a saving at the end of the year.

In the context of the matter to which the Deputy refers, namely, why it is necessary to seek external economic expertise, it was decided that an external economic view - to complement the Department's own economic expertise - would be sought as in input to the process. The development of the medium-term economic strategy is a significant item of work and it is not something which the Department would do regularly. Accordingly, we are of the view that it is appropriate to seek the views and expertise of professional economists and stakeholders, both within and outside the service. In the development of the policy, the consultants co-ordinated closely with the Department of Finance in the preparation of their report. The draft findings of that report were shared with those Departments which contributed to the preparation of the medium-term economic strategy. That is the process which obtains. The external consultancy services, including those of an eminent economist, in this case were requisitioned in the aftermath of a tendering process.

There are qualified economists within the Department. At present, 67 individuals with economic qualifications are on the staff of the Department. Those qualifications range from certificate level right up through diplomas, primary and postgraduate degrees and even a doctorate in pure economics. However, very few of the people who possess such qualifications would describe themselves as professional economists. They are permanent civil servants who, as part of their further education, studied economics. I studied economics in university but I would never describe myself as a professional economist. I know the basics of economics because it was one of the subjects I took for my degree but that does not make me an economist. There are not that many professional economists within the Department. However, there are 67 people who have a competence in economics because they studied the subject to one level or another in the course of their further education.

There are always matters in respect of which one needs either additional input or the specialised expertise necessary to check what is happening. If one strips out the legal fees - much of which we recoup from the banks in any event - one will see that our allocation for consultancy services is quite modest and reasonable in the context of the model used across the public service.

I am trying to be fair here. The Minister referred to the liquidation of IBRC, the promissory notes and legal challenges, none of which comes under the programme expenditure heading we are dealing with at present.

The Deputy's initial comments ranged across a number of headings. He referred to the general level of consultancy provision for the Department and I replied to what he said.

That was approximately 15 minutes ago and the remarks in question related to the additional €5 million.

Yes, and the Chairman ruled that I was not allowed to reply.

That is correct and I am going to hold to that earlier ruling by ensuring that the Minister and the Deputy confine their remarks to the specific matter under discussion.

I made those remarks when the Minister was dealing with administration costs - at which point the Minister was entitled to reply to them - and not during my opening statement.

I know the Deputy would like to put information on the record without my having an opportunity to reply to it.

Sorry, I must intervene. If the Minister and the Deputy want to hold their own meeting, that is fine and I will step out of the room. However, as far as I am aware, I am chairing these proceedings.

A referee is always welcome.

Perhaps we might return to the issue at hand.

I am asking the Minister a direct question in respect of the €350,000 in additional moneys being provided for consultancy fees. The liquidation of the IBRC and legal challenges relating to the banking sector come under other headings with which we will deal presently. The briefing note provided indicates that the €350,000 relates to the development and implementation of the medium-term economic strategy. We know that the Department issued two tenders for consultancy in respect of developing the strategy. I am seeking to discover if it will be hiring a group of consultants to implement that strategy. The impression one is given is that this is the case and that the cost will be €350,000. The briefing note does not mention professional economists, rather it refers to the implementation of a Government policy. When we deal with public money, it is right and proper that we should ask why the Department is not able to implement its own policy and why it found it necessary to procure external assistance to develop that policy. The Minister offered a legitimate argument to the effect that the Department does not retain the services of the necessary specialist economic or advisory experts.

Implementation is one issue. I also asked the Minister three other questions. Will he indicate what is the international assignee programme, which costs the State €100,000? Will he also indicate why we are paying €120,000 in respect of positions for two individuals, one at the IMF and the other at the EBRD? Are those positions permanent and will this be a recurring cost? In the context of the transformational project, will the Minister comment on the additional expenditure of €150,000 the Department is seeking under consultancy and services in this regard? Will he also indicate who will be the beneficiary of that €150,000?

I wish to seek some direction from the Chair. There are issues which run across the different programmes and I would like to comment on these. May I do so now or should I wait until later?

No. I will deal with the specific headings and then we can wrap up and I will allow the Deputy some flexibility at the end if he wishes to deal with the macro issue. We are speaking to the specific heads now. We are dealing with programme A; A.1 - administration; and A.2 - administration, non-pay. These are under programme A - European Union and international policy. We are dealing with subheads A.1, A.2, A.3 and key outputs, output targets and context and impact indicators and matters relating to same.

I would have the same concerns about the consultancy issue under subhead A but I note from the interesting pie charts that there is a pattern with regard to consultants across all of them.

I will allow the Deputy some flexibility. He can proceed and make his point.

The Minister said that there is insufficient in-house expertise in particular areas because of policy issues or priorities that arise and that there is a need to obtain external expertise. From these pie charts it seems that the proportion is very significant. Under the subhead with which we are dealing, the figure is 19%; under subhead B the figure is an incredible 59% for consultancy and other services; under subhead C the figure is 13%; under subhead D the figure is 25%; and under subhead E the figure is smaller at 4%. Those figures are very significant. Given the discussion that has positively taken place on the value-for-money issue in terms of consultants with respect to Irish Water, surely we have to ask the same questions here because we are talking about significant amounts of money. Under one of the subheads, the figure is €6 million.

If the Deputy can refer to a specific subhead, we can then deal with that point on that specific heading. I am allowing the Deputy some latitude to make his point.

In instancing those figures, they involve a good deal of money.

The Chairman will not let me reply to the Deputy.

I think he probably will. Will he?

If the Deputy will give the Minister a chance to reply, I will bring him in.

Of course, I want to hear the Minister's answer.

I need to focus the Deputy to put questions and then-----

Whether the amount involved is hundreds of thousands or millions or euro, that is significant. The obvious question that begs an answer is whether it would be cheaper to employ people with that expertise directly. When we are talking of figures of hundreds of thousands of euro or, in one case, millions of euro, it must be asked if it would not be cheaper to employ somebody full-time in those instances. When the Minister seeks such expert advice, we do not know what lies behind the subheading. Who are these consultants and how much are they getting paid? The figures seem to indicate they get paid a great deal.

I call the Minister.

The general policy in the Irish public service is that expertise which is not available in-house is bought in or hired in as needed. It is done on the basis that particular expertise is not needed all the time and is only needed occasionally to address particular tasks. It can be compared to the what many of the Deputy's neighbours in his constituency in Dún Laoghaire would do when they want to paint their houses. They would not add to their staff by having a full-time painter, they would hire in the painter. If they want to fix a leak, they would not hire a full- time plumber and put another three or four maintenance people on staff. The Deputy would know that from his experience in the constituency. One would supplement particular expertise by hiring it in occasionally.

The Deputy quoted a number of percentages but percentages do not give the full picture because if one spends €1 and the following year one puts the figure up to €2, that is an increase of 100%. The real amounts of money are the significant aspects of it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty asked some specific questions. On the €350,000 included this year on the economic strategy, I cannot give him the specifics of that because nobody has been hired under that head yet and nothing has been specified. To implement the economic strategy, an estimate has been made that we may need consultancy services up to that value. The provision is made in the Estimate to allow the Department to do it in the course of the year but there is no procurement yet. That is the way Estimates are done. If we did not put it in the Estimate at the start of the year, we would not have the authority to do it without a Supplementary Estimate. That is what has happened there.

On the overseas postings and so on, there is an international assignee project and it is linked to replacing people in the EU Presidency as it rotates. I am very much in favour of this. I remember in the 1970s when we entered the EU we had significant people transferring from Departments entering the European bureaucracy and going right to the top. For example, Ms Catherine Day is the lead civil servant in Europe at present and she is the civil servant who services the policy requirements of President Barroso. We have had other examples of Irish civil servants going to the top but it is quite evident for the last three years that because of the various job opportunities, probably due to the Celtic tiger, that this was discontinued and there are not Irish civil servants, by and large, at significant levels in Europe. It is time that we recommenced a programme to put Irish civil servants in there in our own interests. We have done that now. It is going to be possible in my view to do so, and maybe relatively easy to do so, because the reputation of the Irish civil servants who participated in Brussels during the Presidency was very high. Already we have had inquires from Commission staff and so on to hire specific people whose work record they know from when they were in Brussels. That is what the assignee project placement is about.

If the Commission wants to hire a civil servant who is currently employed in the Civil Service-----

They get paid but there are some transfer, placement and recruitment costs and so on.

The figure here is €100,000.

Yes. Again it is an indicative figure. As well as that-----

How could it cost €100,000?

I do not want to be flippant about it but if the Deputy wants to know how it would cost that, he should do it retrospectively through the Committee of Public Accounts. When the money is spent, then a specific detailed answer can be given to him.

I am not on the Committee of Public Accounts.

We are dealing with an estimate of what senior civil servants believe may be a need under certain programmes and this amount of money goes in but until it is spent the specifics of it are not available. I can tell the Deputy the general purpose of it, the intent of it and the policy area in which it will be spent if it is spent. That is the position on it. The Deputy is treating Estimates as if the money was actually spent. That is where the Committee of Public Accounts comes in and scrutinises the spend. It is a different issue.

I agree with the Minister but on this point-----

I want to continue and to answer the Deputy's other question. He also asked about-----

I will allow the Minister to continue but I need to make a point. We will have another one of these meetings with the Select Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform at 4.30 p.m. I know that the members of the select committee other than myself will not be at that meeting but I must adhere to a schedule to ensure that I conclude this meeting in time for the next meeting. We have agreed a programme for this meeting and I am trying to facilitate members. I know the consultancy issue is current at the moment in that it is very fashionable, but there is a consultancy subhead under every heading. If this is the way we are going to proceed, we will be here all afternoon.

I would like to answer Deputy Doherty's other question and I will move on quickly.

If I can get cogent questions and cogent responses it will allow us to finish the programme we have agreed, otherwise I will have to accelerate proceedings at the end.

Another area where there is international participation is the IMF and the European Bank of Reconstruction Development postings. In the EBRD there are three posts - director, alternate director- adviser - and they rotate between Ireland, Denmark and Lithuania. There are three postings in the IMF also and that is part of that international element.

On the transformational budget, the money there is intended to help to develop and implement an IT strategy for the Department.

It needs to procure an IT adviser in that respect and to improve document management and CRM systems, which dovetails with the Deputy's initial request for better documentation management. There is a banking shared services project. There is a governance and policy development business process that includes an optimal legal structure and a secure document management process. In addition, there is the implementation of a general reform programme.

If one adds up all the consultancy provisions in the Estimates it comes to €9 million to implement all the policy developments across the Department but also to defend legal issues and banking and to run the national payments plan steering committee single euro payments area, SEPA, campaign. Some of the very heavy expenditure is legal - legal advice for particular projects for which we do not have the legal expertise within the Department, but also to defend legal challenges. Quite a lot of these items arise from the work of the Department over the past four or five years. We recoup a significant proportion of the amount. Last year, of a total of €3.3 million we recouped in excess of €2 million from the banks in particular. It is not all a net figure. That is the overview. If any supplementary information is required the Deputy should inform us and we will give it to him in writing.

I am not happy with the response. I know the role of the committee. I do not sit on the Committee of Public Accounts. The role of the committee is to scrutinise the Estimates. I would not be doing my job if I did not ask questions such as the purpose of a new spend of €100,000. I know it is for the programme and to assign somebody to the Civil Service but what I still do not know is whether the money is for the civil servant or for consultants to tell us how to operate the programme. I know the money has not been spent but the reason it has appeared in the Estimates is that the Department has a view that it might need to be spent for this purpose. It might not be spent but the money will be there. I hope the figure has not been plucked out of the air. The Minister has not given an indication of who will be the beneficiary of the €100,000 under the programme. It is our job to say money should not be spent on a specific area if we believe it is a misuse of public funds.

Would it be possible to provide further information on the matters raised by Deputy Doherty to assist the debate and then we could move on?

I can do so provided I know what further information is required. As far as I am concerned I have given him very specific answers to very specific questions. If more information is required that I am not aware of at present then the Deputy should ask for it and we will provide the information we have.

We now move on to programme B, financial services policy, which consists of subheads B1, administration - pay, B2, administration - non-pay, B3, comments and commissions, B4, consultancy and other services, and also matters relating to key output targets and context and impact indicators. I invite Members to make comments or to ask questions. Speakers should be specific to the headings this time; they must refer to one of the items outlined, or else I will move on.

I wish to ask about one of the outputs listed for this year to complete the review of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, including assessment of alternatives to outright sales for relatively illiquid properties such as qualifying investment funds. Could the Minister tell us about the NAMA review, which is a requirement under the legislation? Who will conduct the review and what is the timeframe for it? One of the issues raised in recent days by one of the Minister's parliamentary party colleagues was that NAMA would be allowed to sell loans back to the original developer to whom the loan related.

I wish to ask the Minister about subhead B4, consultancy and other services. The outturn for 2013 was €3.5 million, yet the Estimate allowed for this year is €6.5 million. That seems like a huge amount of money for consultancy and seems even larger and more significant against a background in which the Minister required only half of that in the previous year. I accept that the Minister allowed for approximately €6.5 million last year and did not spend it, but he is allowing for €6.5 million this year for consultants. Could he explain that? Who, precisely, are the consultants? What are they doing for us and why do we need them?

We are taking about subhead B4 at the moment. What is the state of play with regard to the strategic investment bank? That is one of the targets that is outlined. How will it be progressed in 2014?

The NAMA review is ongoing at present. It is being conducted internally in consultation with NAMA. It is a requirement under the Act and we will see what it comes up with. NAMA is subject to an awful lot of criticism and adverse briefing, principally driven by developers and builders who have a vested interest in putting out bad stories about NAMA. If one examines the situation in NAMA one will see that, contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the most accountable public State agency in the country. As many members are aware, there are staff from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office permanently embedded in NAMA examining every transaction that is conducted. In addition, the valuations it attributed to the loan books it acquired were all cross-checked by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who stated on a number of occasions that this work was conducted properly and that the values attributed were appropriate. The work of NAMA is also cross-checked by the European Commission, which did another audit on it and came to the same conclusion. NAMA is always available to come before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts. It issues quarterly reports as well as annual reports. No public body in the country has the level of accountability and scrutiny of NAMA, but there is a campaign against NAMA in the vested interests of certain people. The committee should be aware of that when it is briefed. It should examine the briefing it gets because much of it is not correct. NAMA has assured me that it will talk to the committee directly on any occasion when there are any doubts about the processes it conducts. It is a very big company that deals with valuable assets. It acts in the interest of the Irish taxpayer and so far it has been quite successful in acting in that regard. If there is a conflict between the interests of the Irish taxpayer and the interests of an individual developer NAMA will favour the taxpayer, and a lot of people do not like that.

On the issue of whether developers would be allowed to buy back their own assets at the discounted rates at which they were acquired by NAMA, as the Deputy is well aware, that is a very controversial issue. It was controversial when the NAMA legislation was being processed through Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. At present I have no intention of changing that. If the NAMA review comes up with a proposal to leave the situation as it is or to change it then we will examine the proposal in due course with all the other recommendations. I am hands-off in terms of the NAMA review. I have no idea what will be recommended. The Deputy will be aware that in other circumstances we allowed buy-backs, but not in NAMA, and it is not my intention to change the legislation.

What is the timeframe for the completion of the review?

It will not be weeks but I hope it will be months. I have not put a deadline on it.

Will it be published in due course?

Yes; I will publish it.

What about Deputy Boyd Barrett's point about the €6.5 million for consultancy fees?

We are back to the issue of consultancy again. I have outlined the model. We supplement the expertise in the Department by retaining consultants. Much of what we need externally is in terms of legal advice because we deal with intricate legal issues, especially on the property side and the banking side. I have a note on consultancy and other services, and it refers directly to Deputy Boyd Barrett's point. An allocation of €6.575 million was provided in the 2013 Estimate driven by the requirement to provide for a wide range of deliverables, including banking sector policy, personal debt, SME lending, financial services reform and costs of the implementation of the national payment plan projects, all of which were being led by the Department. Significant savings were returned to the Exchequer as a result of a continuing emphasis on cost control and cost sharing. Notwithstanding this, a similar provision has been allocated in 2014 because of ongoing exposure and demands across all these categories. While the Department will continue to seek savings where possible, it must be equipped to address issues as they arise. If we find that we have something in the middle of the year and we do not have the expertise in-house to deal with it, I need to be able to buy it in and if I do not have it in the Estimate, I have to go back through the process of going before the Houses of the Oireachtas looking for supplementary funds. That is not always dealing with the issues as they need to be dealt with.

And the matter of the strategic investment bank.

On the strategic investment bank, the NewERA legislation is at its final stages and we hope to have that in place this session. That is a strategic investment fund and the decision to grow that into a strategic investment bank has not yet been taken at Government level.

As I hear the Minister's explanation and I look at this sub-head I am not happy with his explanation. It is not satisfactory and it does not satisfactorily explain the allocation of €6.5 million for consultants. To put it in context, if he were to employ full-time economists at €100,000 a year he could get 65 of them. He would not need 65; the expertise of many of them would cross over a number of these sub-heads. When the Minister used the analogy that he would not employ a full-time painter to paint his house he was right but we are not talking about a house. We are talking about an economy and given the amount of money he finds he now has to allocate for outside expertise to be brought in, the cost of that is so high it is self-evident from the amounts involved that the Minister needs full-time economists employed in the Department, which would be better value for money than what is before us. I do not see how the Minister could argue anything else.

I will make two points on the consultancy. I am glad the Estimate agreed last year was not spent, resulting in significant savings as mentioned earlier but as I did earlier, I again raise concern about the quantum of increase in comparison to the outturn last year. Across every heading there is an increase for consultancy fees. Only a few weeks ago the Minister stood up in the Chamber and announced the cuts, along with his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, yet when it comes to his own Department every category from A to E has an increase for consultancy spend, and that is questionable.

In terms of legal fees, and particularly this section B which deals with the banking issue, I understand there is the potential for numerous legal challenges - I refer to NAMA and all the rest - that the Department has to face down. In terms of last year's outturn and also this year's Estimate, and I know Estimates are "guesstimates", the Minister is guessing how much of it is for legal fees and consultancy. The Minister mentioned there is a need for consultancy on banking sector policy, personal debt, small and medium enterprises, SME, lending, financial services reform, and cost of implementation of the national payment plan. All of those areas must be tackled, therefore, we understand the need for that. I subscribe to the idea that we can have all the expertise within the Department but when we see the amount being spent on consultancy services, the total quantum is €9 million but this year there is a €5.75 million increase in his Department.

Regarding the issue of NAMA and the review, I welcome that this is happening. The Minister will be well aware that I have asked hundreds of parliamentary questions about NAMA, which I know the Minister reads personally and has answered, on staff and whether the right fire-walls are in place. Rules have been changed in the intermediate period but I agree with the Minister that there is an orchestrated campaign against NAMA and if it is against NAMA, it is against the State also. I hope NAMA will succeed and out-perform even its own expectations because that means the State will be a beneficiary, but it is as clear as the nose on our faces that certain developers are driving an agenda. Unfortunately, some people are playing into that agenda but that should not stop us from challenging NAMA where NAMA must be challenged. The Minister made a case in terms of transparency and accountability but the lack of freedom of information, which was a mistake in the previous Administration, has created huge suspicions in terms of NAMA. I hope that veil will be lifted and we will get more transparency. I look forward to the review and engagement with this committee regarding the outcome of that review also.

To help Deputy Boyd Barrett and Deputies McGrath and Doherty, the breakdown I have of the consultancy under this head for 2014 is €4.3 million in banking and €1 million for the national payments initiative and for the single European payments area. There are many communications costs in making people aware of these, and they are a great benefit and are well worth doing. There is also €0.75 million for SME, credit provision, mortgages and all that area, and some of that is communication also.

On the banking aspect, I can estimate legal fees on banking where cases are running from 2013 into 2014. It is not rocket science to estimate that there will be legal costs, and to put a figure on it, but if something happens unexpectedly mid-year and new costs arise, we need a provision for it but it is an estimate. It may be overspent or underspent but the tendency in Departments is to provision to ensure they do not have overspends because overspends are a black mark; underspends are not a black mark. These are estimates. They are not hard figures, especially on the consultancy side, but the variation on them will not be very big.

The Deputy is right that there are percentage increases across the consultancy heads this year because we need to buy in a certain amount of expertise for new projects but the overall Estimate for the Department has decreased. At a time when costs are increasing the overall Estimate has decreased. The increased funding for consultancy is being funded with savings within the Department and it is not a further draw on the Exchequer.

We are 15 minutes over the deadline for concluding this section, so I am moving on. We agreed the programme at the start of the meeting. I am now proceeding on to programmes C, D and E, inclusive. Programme C.1 is administration, pay; C.2 is administration, non-pay; C.3 is committees and commissions; and C.4 is consultancies and other services. Programme D is economic policy; D.1 is administration, pay; D.2 is administration, non-pay; and D.3 is consultancy and other services. Programme E is provision of shared services; E.1 is administration, pay; E.2 is administration, non-pay; and E.3 is consultancy and other services. We will also discuss key outputs, output targets and context and impact indicators regarding programmes C, D and E as well as matters arising from appropriations-in-aid.

In respect of the programmes to which the Chairman has referred, head E is not so bad but there is very significant expenditure under heads C and D on what would appear to be consultant economists, that is, economic experts. While I made this point under a previous head, it repeats itself again here and in his response, the Minister did not really address it. I accept these are important areas and in this case it pertains to corporate tax and agricultural taxes, while the previous examples pertained to small and medium-size enterprises, banking and so on. Under head D, provision is made for the medium-term economic strategy and the common element here is that economic expertise is being bought in at a significant cost. The question the Minister has not answered is, how would it not be cheaper - from his perspective and that of the public - to employ a few economists? I do not see the logic in this regard, because big money is being forked out, including €350,000 with regard the medium-term economic strategy. One would employ an economist to oversee it for a lot less than that. Surely activities such as looking into corporate tax or agricultural taxes are not once-off events? A number of these heads pertain to important areas of policy that should be kept under constant review and should be constantly researched, analysed and looked at. Would it not be cheaper and better value to employ directly a few people who are expert in these areas to advise the Government, rather than incurring large expenditure on consultants?

The Deputy has moved into repetition.

I am dealing with this head.

I know, but you have made the same point twice in the same conclusion.

I have not got an answer.

I will bring in the Minister for a response. I call Deputy Pearse Doherty.

I will mention briefly the consultancy stuff as members now are dealing with other sections. Spending for heads C, D and E has gone from €161,000, €101,000 and €101,000, respectively, to €575,000, €630,000 and €490,000, respectively. This seems like a runaway train. While I acknowledge these are only Estimates that are being provided for, this does not pertain to legal fees but is policy driven. I do not believe the same latitude was given to the Department of Health to simply throw in an additional couple of million euro here, there or wherever, or an additional 20% increase. In some cases provision is being made here for 100% increases, just in case the need arises, and this is not the way in which budgets are done.

In respect of committees and commissions, I refer to the disabled drivers medical board of appeal. I understand that €330,000 has been provided just for that board and it does not relate to the relief those who avail of the scheme receive. While the Minister mentioned that fees and salaries have been reduced over the last couple of years, yet it is increasing by approximately €5,000. However, it would be interesting to get a breakdown of the €330,000 to the board members in respect of their fees and salaries. I am unsure how many such board members there are.

While there is material I could go into in respect of consultants, I understand the Chair wishes to move on. However, I ask the Minister to focus on subhead D3 and while considering D3, there should be a reference to subhead A3. This is because under the consultancy and other services heading, there is an increase from €101,000 to €630,000. The Minister has provided a breakdown of the allocation, the first item of which is €350,000 in respect of the medium-term economic strategy driven from the economics division. However, when members were provided with a breakdown of the consultancy services under subhead A3, under that category there also is €350,000 for the development and implementation of the medium-term economic strategy. Why are two different subcategories of the same Department each charging a cost of €350,000 in consultancy or other services for the same strategy?

My final question is in respect of appropriations-in aid and concerns the pension levy. The Department expects a reduced return from the pension levy in 2014. Can the Minister explain this, given the changes that took place to the levy in the budget, from €1.1 million down to €0.95 million?

First, not all the expertise being sought through consultancy is economic expertise. It is economic, legal and communications expertise in some respects. The amounts of money, in their totality, are not huge in comparison with overall budgets. I have given Deputy Boyd Barrett the explanation previously that the expertise is not available in-house and it is more economic to get it through consultancy than to hire permanent staff. That is the position. Were the Deputy correct and were it cheaper to hire in, of course we would try to do so, but that is not the way it works. If one takes an area like the two big areas of taxation we intend to examine this year, namely, all the reliefs to agriculture and the agrisector, as well as corporate taxation, these are two highly important areas. While the Department has people who are quite knowledgeable about the tax that applies to these areas, it does not have people within it who deal with farm tax or who deal with the tax of multinational companies. In other words, we do not have practitioner experience in-house and no one would expect us to do so. Yet, before one makes far-reaching changes that could have highly serious consequences for the economy, it is important to check the policy here within the Department against the practical experience and expertise outside. In economics now, as it goes up to the doctorate level, it becomes a very refined art and there are areas of expertise in which people are competent but they are not competent in the next area. The Department has economists who are expert on aspects of company law but they might not be experts on anything to do with farm taxation. Similarly, they may have no expertise in corporate tax. They will have the kind of expertise that generalists have but will not have expert knowledge. What is needed, many times, is expert knowledge and that is what we seek and is what we must bring in.

In respect of those two areas, in particular on the tax side, there is an increase provided for here and it reflects the ongoing commitment to review all key tax categories on a rolling basis. Key items for the review of 2014 will be the agritax sector and corporation taxes. It is essential that a review of our corporation tax regime is conducted to ensure that we remain competitive globally, while also preserving and preventing damage to Ireland's reputation. A comprehensive review of agricultural tax policy, to include income tax, capital taxes, VAT, stamp duty and corporation tax, also is planned to evaluate the costs and benefits of reliefs available to the sector. We must have expertise to match the sectoral interests, who also will be giving advice on these matters.

In fairness, I believe Deputy Boyd Barrett has received reasonable answers as to the reason all expertise is not brought in-house. Moreover, he must recall there are caps on civil servants' salaries and they have been reduced significantly in recent years. There have been reductions of between 20% and 25%. The kind of expertise the Department needs on occasion would not come to the first interview with the kind of salaries that are being offered to senior civil servants. They would not cross the door of the place to be interviewed for a full-time position because they get salaries vastly in excess of Civil Service rates in the law firms or accountancy firms in which they work. One then pays for their expertise but thankfully, from an Exchequer point of view, one does not need it for the full year. One needs it for a week or two or less, on occasions.

That is the justification for it.

On the question from Deputy Doherty on the pension levy, I am advised it is the knock-on reductions from the Haddington Road agreement. Following the cuts in salaries, the amount goes down. That has to be allowed for in the Estimate as well.

I will get an answer for the Deputy on the disabled drivers appeal board. I am told that there is a circular flow of money to Rehab. We will get the Deputy all the specific details. We do not have them on file here.

My last question was in regard to the same spend for the medium-term economic strategy under subhead D as is itemised in subhead A. Why is there is €350,000 booked in for that strategy in both subheads?

The project will be led by two divisions of the Department and the allocation is spread across the two divisions.

Are we providing €700,000 for consultancy within the Department for the implementation of this strategy?

Yes. This is driving economic and fiscal policy in the post-bailout period. The strategy which is brought forward will provide the tramlines within which we will operate now that the bailout is over and we do not have the troika providing the similar service. It is a low cost when one considers the intention.

I would have hoped when the troika went that the Department would start driving the project again but we are providing €700,000 for outside firms to drive it.

They are driving the project. In a public service which is by its nature generalist, expertise is always required. Expertise is brought in by getting consultants in and it is cost effective when it is operated properly. I would argue strongly that there is no waste of money in this respect in the Department of Finance. If we were to follow Deputy Boyd Barrett's advice, it would be like the example I gave jocosely. It would be like somebody with a staff running a hotel, for example, who would have painters, electricians and plumbers on permanent staff in-house rather than hiring them in. It is the same issue.

On that issue, we will agree to disagree. I strongly disagree with the Minister. I merely wanted to say that.

I will not move into repetition or any comment.

I am merely stating for the record I disagree with the Minister. I do not accept his explanation.

On the corporate tax advice the Minister is seeking, from whom is he seeking it?

We have not yet procured the advice.

Has the Minister identified some of it?

No. There is a range of accountancy firms, which would be the ones who deal with the multinationals. This is by and large a multinational issue. Sometimes we even get pro bono advice because we would have good connections. When we made that change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2013, we discussed the change widely. IDA Ireland is usually our first port of call because it has a strong set of contacts and, of course, it does not charge for its advice. We will get an appropriate accountancy firm, but it is difficult enough to get somebody who is not conflicted.

We are moving on.

It is a small country when it comes to conflicts of interests.

That is why we should employ somebody.

We are moving on to Vote 8, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, pages 29 to 31 of the briefing document of the Department. The headings on this are: administrative subheads (i) to (ix). On programme A, auditing and reporting: subheads A1, administration - pay; subhead A2, administration - non-pay; matters relating to key outputs, output targets, and context and impact indicators; and matters relating to appropriations-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions on Vote 8?

I have a question for the Minister. The matter is dealt with on page 31, context and impact indicator related information. It compares the targets that the office faced at the end of September, and then the outcome. It is falling considerably behind on accounts to be certified by the end of September 2013. It was to be 252 and in practice, it was 204. The percentage of current year accounts certified was 52% instead of 70%. Could the Minister example the reason for that? The staffing levels appear to be quite stable. Presumably, they are under considerable pressure. The Minister might comment on that.

Second, the Minister indicates that, with the likely transfer of some IBRC assets to NAMA, there will be additional work for the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. At this stage, has he any indication as to the likely scale of that additional work?

I have the same issues. There is concern that the targets have not been met. In broad cases, some of them have been exceeded. The percentage of current year accounts certified was 52% whereas the target was 70%. The number of accounts to be certified was supposed to be 252 and at the end of September it was 204. Those are quite large figures that have not been met. That leads to the question of resourcing within the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. Has there been any request from that office for additional staffing power to carry out the work that is before it?

On the new 2014 audit on NAMA in terms of the IBRC transfer of assets, it is mentioned here that the office is examining the resourcing for this office. Is it the case that the office is raising concerns that it may not have the necessary staff power to conduct the work it has on hand plus this new body of work?

On the arrears, the explanation is that they concentrate on the larger accounts. If one looks at the percentages, they are high on the larger accounts. It is the smaller accounts where they are falling behind but that is because of the method of allocating the work. In value terms, they deal with a very high proportion of them.

On the NAMA question, when NAMA commenced it had liabilities of €30 billion, that is, the quantum of public money that is in play. At the end of the last quarter, however, NAMA fulfilled its first repayment obligation by paying back €7.5 billion. In the course of 2014, with the cash it has in hand and with foreseeable transactions, NAMA will go close enough to €7 billion again in transactions. The NAMA portfolio, at the end of 2014, will have reduced substantially.

The quantum that is under the control of the special liquidator is approximately €12.6 billion. On the special liquidator's sale of assets, it looks as if he will sell at least half of that, perhaps more. That is a rough estimate because one never knows what one will sell until it is bought but the expectation with the level of interest there is that €6 billion of that will be bought before it is transferred to NAMA at all. When one takes approximately €16 billion and adds another €6 billion to it, one will see that the NAMA portfolio will still be substantially below what it was at its starting point three years ago.

Nobody has brought to my attention that there is any particular additional requirement from the Comptroller and Auditor General's office to deal with NAMA but he will get whatever resources he needs because it is important. I do not deal with the staff or the Estimate. I am responsible for these Estimates but they are negotiated with Deputy Howlin's Department and he controls staff. As far as I know, as a near neighbour, I do not think there are issues of staff or resources outstanding with the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. Certainly, they have not been brought to my attention. The practice would be to give the Comptroller and Auditor General what he needs within reason and, usually, there is not a conflict about these matters.

Moving on now to Vote 9, Office of the Revenue Commissioners, pages 32 to 42 of the briefing document of the Department, administrative subheads (i) to (xi). On programme A, administration and collection of taxes, duties and frontier management: subheads A1, administration - pay; subhead A2, administration - non-pay; subhead A3, disabled drivers and disabled passengers grant scheme; matters relating to key outputs, output targets, and context and impact indicators; and matters relating to appropriations-in-aid. Are there any questions or comments?

There is a big-ticket item here on which I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The Minister will be well aware of Sinn Féin’s call for additional staff to be employed in the Revenue Commissioners. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners itself has said that it could generate additional income for the State if it had the resources. In fairness, when the local property tax was made the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners the Government proposed to increase the number of staff. However, the figures before us today show that the increase never materialised. In 2012, there were 5,715 staff. The estimate for 2013 was 5,874 because of the local property tax. There was an increase of just below 160 proposed but the provisional outturn was 5,756. Therefore, there were 118 fewer staff in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners than actually approved. This was at a time when the office was dealing with the local property tax. There is great admiration for the Revenue Commissioners’ online system and capability of getting notices out, and forms are issued like clockwork, including to employers. The local property tax is a different ballgame, however. There were many errors when it was introduced, and the Revenue Commissioners explained this would happen. Why were there 118 staff fewer than were approved? The Minister is saying that 22 staff have been moved to shared financial services but there has been an overall decrease within the Office of the Revenue Commissioners again this year. The office stated to the Department that an increase of 100 would bring in a quite substantial amount of additional revenue for the State. Does the Minister not believe this? Will he deal with this issue in detail?

I am an admirer of the online revenue system. It is outstanding. Consider the subject of office equipment and external IT services. One sees that there was a substantial cost associated with running IT services in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners amounting to €49 million. Some €25 million of this is for external IT systems development and maintenance. This seems very high. Can the Minister shed any light on that? The Office of the Revenue Commissioners is to spend close to €5 million buying new computers. Is this to replace the entire suite? Some €14 million is to be spent on maintenance and meeting running costs. The figures seem very high. Expenditure on printing, at €1.1 million, seems to be a lot lower.

There is another increase pertaining to consultancy costs but it is in respect of specialist X-ray equipment for the Customs and Excise service. We need to increase capability in the Revenue Commissioners in this regard. Expenditure on motor vehicles and equipment maintenance, including the maintenance of X-ray scanners and specialist equipment, is actually down by comparison with last year. It has been shown that if there were proper resources to deal with black market activity, it would be very beneficial to the State. I am concerned about this area.

There is a 30% increase in the amount to be made available to the Revenue Commissioners to meet legal fees. A large increase pertains to bankruptcy and liquidation. In addition, there is quite substantial increase in terms of solicitors’ fees. This is an issue.

Could the Minister state what is happening with the disabled drivers and passengers scheme? There is no allocation or budget provided for 2014 because it is mentioned that the existing scheme will continue. I am not clear on this. I acknowledge that the scheme, which is new, requires European approval but there is no budget for an old scheme. The only budget was for the board. Could the Minister shed some light on this?

The Revenue Commissioners seem to be adopting a much more forensic and targeted approach to audits. One of the outputs from 2013 was that risk-based audit and compliance interventions yielded over €550 million. The targeted output for 2014 points to an increased yield from such interventions. Clearly, the Revenue Commissioners have had a lot of success in this regard. Can the Minister outline what areas have been found to be of high risk resulting in such a high yield? There is not a new initiative but new emphasis on risk-based auditing, which yielded over €0.5 billion in one year.

I will respond to some general questions first and then I will look for advice on some of the specifics. Solicitors’ fees are paid to recover tax. Far more is recovered than fees paid so that is an advantage. If we increase activity in this area, we collect more revenue.

Deputy Doherty is probably familiar with the background to the disabled drivers grant. The European Commission took us to the European Court of Justice and the scheme was deemed to be illegal under European law because of our treating one category of people differently from another for excise purposes. There is a tolerance allowed on the payment of excise but the decision was that disabled drivers would have to operate within the same band, meaning a serious loss in the rebate of excise for disabled drivers. Having examined this, we decided we would try to allow the same level of recoupment in respect of disabled drivers by way of grant rather than rebate. The Revenue Commissioners decided, because this was happening so quickly, to take responsibility for that although they normally do not pay out money. Money was put into the Estimate. In the final days of the negotiations before Christmas, the European Commission allowed us an extra year in which to get in line. This has gone on for approximately four years. We have delayed and delayed in so far as we could because I certainly did not want to take away any rebate that disabled drivers were getting. However, we are now at the point where we must change what we are doing. We have been given an extra year. The lump sum in an allocation for Revenue is now not needed so that will come back as a saving. I will discuss with officials in my Department and the Department of Social Protection the question of which Department we should allocate the money to if we move to a grant scheme. This is being operated by four staff of the Revenue Commissioners in Monaghan who receive all the claims. It is a receipt-based system. The intention is to maintain the same level of advantage for disabled drivers based on what they spend on fuel, but we will do so in a different way. We believe this will be legally acceptable. We have succeeded in getting an extra year in which to put the alternative arrangement in place.

With regard to Deputy McGrath's question, the targeted audits seem to be proceeding much better than the general audits. They are yielding more. The Deputy asked about the sectors that are yielding more.

The high-yield areas that have been identified.

I will try to get that information. The targeted audits concentrate predominantly on sectors most susceptible to the shadow economy and shadow activity. They maintain a specific focus on cash businesses; the detection of serious sales suppression in pubs and restaurants and the entertainment and hospitality industries; checking the compliance of white-collar professionals, doctors, dentists, veterinarians, solicitors and accountants; and the construction industry.

The range of compliance activities deployed includes: risk analysis; covert surveillance; cold calls to businesses and venues and pre-arranged aspect queries on specific issues; intelligence gathering; third-party information; and information exchange with other State agencies.

In 2013, Revenue carried out unannounced visits to specific areas, towns, streets, market squares and special events with a focus on non-compliance with Revenue obligations including registration for all appropriate taxes, excise and duties and specifically cash businesses. During these operations it identified and addressed risks and specific sectors such as couriers, security companies and fuel merchants. In 2014, Revenue will also use the new anti-fraud provisions contained in the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2013.

That is quite a lot. I thank the Minister.

Vote 10, office of the-----

The Minister is waiting for guidance on answers to my question on employees.

It was a question on staffing in Revenue. There is a staffing mix. There is the equivalent of 130 full-time posts in temporary staff on top of those figures. There was outsourcing of the call centres in the property tax arrangements, so the Deputy is getting the net full-time staff figures but there are temporary and outsourced staff in addition to that. There is a trade-off between the movement toward better IT systems and the necessity for staff. That is also in the mix.

Is the Revenue approaching the Minister seeking additional staff?

I do not allocate staff to the Revenue. That is the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I have frequent meetings with the chairperson of the Revenue and she did not raise staff issues with me in recent meetings. The last time she raised staff issues with me, as far as I can recall, was in the preparation for the property tax.

Vote 10, Office of the Appeal Commissioners, pages 43 to 50 in the briefing document, Department administrative subheads Nos. 1 to 5 of 6: programme A, facilitation of hearings of tax appeals; programme A1, administration pay; and A2, administration non-pay, related key outputs, output targets in context and impact indicators and matters relating to appropriation aid. Are there any questions on this section?

On the Office of the Appeal Commissioners?

I will be very strict on time as another meeting is scheduled and I must finish.

The commitment I made in the budget to reform the recruitment process for new appointments as appeal commissioners will require legislation, which I hope to introduce this year. I intend to appoint a third appeals commissioner.

I thank the Minister and his officials for assisting the committee with our consideration of 2014 Revised Estimates and programmes. As we have completed our consideration of the revised Estimates of Votes 7, to 10, inclusive, in accordance with Standing Order 87, the clerk to the committee will convey a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil. Under Standing Order 86(2), the message is deemed to be the report of the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Barr
Roinn