Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I presume the Chairman is referring to the guidance document before us. We have no issues with it as a general approach. However, in any assessment of the impact of what we are doing, one must take a broader view than that allowed by some of the expressions in the document. The guidance suggests, for example, that outputs should relate to goods and services provided to third parties which the entity is accountable for.

Some of our range of activities can be fitted into "goods and services", but not in the very linear way of the private sector, where one delivers a good in exchange for a payment and knows what is the output. When Enterprise Ireland supports management development of companies, innovation activities or the adoption of lean processes, one does not tend to see the output and outcomes immediately. While one sees the activity and the companies participating, the outputs and outcomes tend to become apparent over a period. We have done evaluations ex post facto.

The guidance is one thing. It is the New Zealand approach. There are other approaches and I have no problem with it in principle. In practice, the committee's assessment stated our Department had one of the highest percentages of output measures considered to be both relevant and specific, on initial review. Although we are doing well, we could do better. The committee's appraisal has identified areas where activity is reported that could be more specifically linked to outputs, for example, in some of the areas in which we are processing applications, such as work permits or workplace relations activities, we could do better. The committee is correct to identify this. We could report activities in terms of the number of cases and the time it takes to deal with them, and we have done so elsewhere. We accept this and would amend it.

In some cases, the committee's approach seems to suggest that working on legislation and driving it through to its conclusion should not be regarded as an output. We take a different view. Much of what we are trying to do is to change the legislative framework, drive efficiencies, as in the case of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or to give better service, as in the case of the credit guarantee. To set at naught the value of such things and not to regard them as outputs would be undervaluing what people do. There is much complexity in getting a piece of legislation from concept to execution. We would have quibbles with this view. Based on this measure, a Department that was dedicated to law reform would be regarded as producing no output.

The application of the New Zealand model must take account of the environment in which each Department works. There are lessons to be learned from it, and I would be the last to quibble with the committee's seeking better performance reporting. I spent most of my political life in opposition, where it was very frustrating to have such estimates. While we have moved a distance, we can move further.

Overall responsibility for performance budgeting rests with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We work to the frameworks it develops. The evolution needs to take account of this, given that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must approve what goes into the final Revised Estimates Volume, REV. Given that we work with the Department as well as the committee, we serve two masters. While I am happy we are doing okay, there is room for improvement. We publish elsewhere some of the performance data that would probably meet the committee's concerns and we could do more in this REV in the Estimates process. Members are well aware of activities such as microfinance, the uptake of which we have doubled during the past 12 months. This is a very positive output. We could populate our reports with more material that would be useful to the committee.

While we might quibble with some of the particulars of the New Zealand model and want it adapted to the sort of service we are providing, I think we would fully agree with the overall thrust of it.