Richard Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance if he has satisfied himself with the progress under the expenditure review initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2791/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 1 February 2005
Ceisteanna (3)
Freagraí ó Béal (12 píosaí cainte)
The first formal report from the expenditure review central steering committee on progress, under the expenditure review initiative for the period June 2002 to June 2004, was submitted to me on 3 November 2004 and forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service on 25 November 2004. This report found that progress had been made by Departments and offices in undertaking systematic evaluation both within and outside the expenditure review initiative and in building an evaluation culture. However, it also highlighted some deficiencies in the process and made a number of recommendations designed to improve it.
I am committed to ensuring that we get better value for money from public expenditure. I would like to see greater progress being made in improving the arrangements for carrying out expenditure reviews and in completing reviews. I have, therefore, accepted the steering committee's recommendations.
I attach particular importance to the recommendation of the steering committee that expenditure reviews should encompass significant spending programmes, that they should be completed on time and that their recommendations should be followed up. The responsibility for implementation of these and all other recommendations rests in the first instance with Departments. I, therefore, wrote to all Ministers last November on receipt of the steering committee's report urging them to ensure that their Departments and offices take appropriate steps to implement the recommendations. My Department will shortly be inviting Departments and offices to submit topics to Government for the next round of expenditure reviews for the period 2005-07. I will take that opportunity to review progress in the interim and to ensure that the steering committee's recommendations for improvement are reflected in the next round of reviews.
Was the Minister as shocked as I was to discover that the follow-up on the expenditure review process was so poor? Is he aware that, of 143 studies to be completed over the period, only 20 were completed? Less than one in seven was completed and more than 30% of them were totally abandoned. In some of these cases, they were abandoned with the clear acquiescence of the Minister's Department. Why did the Minister acquiesce in the abandonment of so many of the studies? Why are so few studies being completed? Why was none of the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General acted upon, following his report on this matter to the House in 2001? We still have the same problems to which he adverted, including poor quality of work, no central guidance, no quality assessment and no review of the impact of any of these studies on actual decisions. It is a shambles and the Minister needs to take this in hand.
It is not correct to say that only 20 studies were completed. By the end of September 2004, 93 reviews had been completed. Since then, a further four reviews have been finalised, bringing the total number of completed reviews to 97. That is significantly different from the number the Deputy suggests.
May I correct the Minister?
Let the Minister finish.
I expect that a number of reports will be finalised soon and that the expenditure review initiative momentum will increase as a result of the steering committee's report.
With regard to those which have not been completed, there are various reasons for that, some of which I might not agree with upon examination. I have accepted the steering committee's recommendations but it is not the only mechanism. There are others under the national development plan where other forms of evaluation, such as a sectoral evaluation, take place. I cannot give a general reason for 40 of them not being completed but there are reasons, some of which are good and some of which are bad. However, 97 have been completed.
Much of the hopeless decision making we have seen on spending has its roots in the cavalier attitude that the Minister's Department and other Ministers have to expenditure review. They do not care what the projections or impacts are. That cavalier attitude is the reason for the debacles of electronic voting and Punchestown.
The Minister is giving distorted information to the Dáil. There are not 93 completed in respect of the 2002 to 2004 report. If the Minister reads the document, he will see that is so.
A question, please.
The Minister should correct this. He is adding reviews that were conducted six years ago into his total to try to improve the numbers. He has completed only 14% of those in the programme. Does the Minister not agree that the issue of value for money must be taken seriously in the health service, environmental services and road programmes? This arises from the cavalier attitude outlined in the report. The Ministers do not care, they are not carrying out the reviews and nobody is forcing the issue.
I do not accept that. I am giving Members the facts as they are outlined in my supplementary information file. I am not trying to mislead the House. It is cavalier to suggest that there is no interest in value for money; there is. One of the successes of this Government has been its ability to work its budget, stay within budget and sometimes exceed budget expectations.
What is it delivering?
There are some areas and programmes where there needs to be greater progress. There have been some improvements both in evaluation and in performance indicators and in terms of what is being produced.
I have accepted the review committee's recommendations where it has identified room for improvement and I have told Ministers that I expect them to be implemented in the context of the next series of reviews to take place, which I agree should relate to significant areas of expenditure. That is the best way by which this initiative can be utilised.