Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am advised that the Taoiseach will be obliged to leave the meeting as soon as possible but he has indicated that he can be present until at least 3.30 p.m. We will, therefore, leave our consideration of Vote 4, for which the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, has responsibility, until the end of the session. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call the Taoiseach.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to appear before the select sub-committee as it considers the Revised Estimates for Votes 1 to 6, inclusive. The Estimates in each case are: Vote 1 - the President's Establishment, €3.062 million; Vote 2 - the Department of the Taoiseach, €22.148 million; Vote 3 - the Office of the Attorney General, €14.317 million; Vote 4 - the Central Statistics Office, €39.758 million; Vote 5 - the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, €37.414 million; and Vote 6 - the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, €29.916 million. The total for the six Votes is €146.615 million. This represents a 7% reduction on the Revised Estimates for 2012 of €157.633 million.

As with all Departments, the Revised Estimates have been prepared on the basis of the savings which arose under the Labour Relations Commission proposals emanating from discussions with the public service trade unions. The Government's position remains clear, namely, that savings on the public service pay and pensions bill of €300 million in 2013 and €1 billion by 2015 are required. As members will be aware, the Labour Relations Commission is currently engaged in a round of discussions with the public service trade unions to establish if there is any basis for a negotiated settlement. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will report back to Government next Tuesday on the outcome of those discussions.

I propose to outline the broad areas of work which will be undertaken by my Department in 2013. I will also outline briefly the proposed Estimate allocations for the President's Establishment, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. Members will be aware that while I have certain responsibilities to the Oireachtas in respect of administrative matters in the legal offices, they operate independently of the Department of the Taoiseach. The Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, will make a short statement on the Revised Estimate relating to the Central Statistics Office, for which he has delegated responsibility.

The Revised Estimate for the President's Establishment is €3.062 million. This includes just over €2 million for pay and administration, with a balance of just over €1 million to fund the centenarian’s bounty. Based on last year's figures and recent trends, it is estimated that 364 centenarians will receive the bounty in 2013. However, the final figure could differ slightly.

A total of €22.148 million has been provided in the Revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach in 2013. I am pleased that the outturn for 2012 was €22.1 million - well within budget - despite the significant costs associated with the preparations for Ireland's Presidency of the EU, the referendum on the EU fiscal treaty and payment of third-party costs in respect of the Moriarty tribunal. The 2013 Revised Estimate is 6% lower than the 2012 allocation, despite the inclusion of €2.1 million to meet the costs relating to the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad and €2.485 million to meet the costs arising from Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first six months of the year to the end of June.

As I indicated to the select sub-committee at last year's meeting, the Department has been significantly restructured to transform it into the equivalent of a Cabinet office with responsibility for overseeing the delivery of the programme for Government. A small office within my Department is tasked with overseeing progress on the implementation of the programme. This office is actively engaged with all Departments in monitoring progress on all the commitments contained in the programme. The Tánaiste and I launched the second annual report on the programme for Government on 6 March. This highlights the extensive work undertaken and the progress made during the Government's second year in office. Much has been achieved in terms of stabilising the economy and unemployment levels, creating the climate for competitiveness and growth, reducing the cost of the bailout and correcting the public finances.

As I have stated on many previous occasions, the Government's priorities in 2013 include continued action on job creation and economic growth; making sure economic recovery does not bypass jobless households; further work to tackle the problem of mortgage arrears; exiting the EU-IMF programme; continued constitutional and political reform; further changes in public services; and new policy changes to enhance people's lives, including in the areas of health, education and child and family services. These priorities are all reflected in the work of my Department, in particular through the system of Cabinet committees. In 2012, my Department provided secretariat to 50 meetings of the Government, for which 1,108 memoranda were circulated. My Department provides briefings on all these items, as well as recording and communicating the decisions taken. My Department also provided secretariat to 91 Cabinet committee meetings, including those relating to the Economic Management Council. In most instances, Cabinet committees are supported by groups of relevant senior officials and are chaired by my Department.

Unemployment remains at an unacceptably high level and my Department's first priority is to support job creation and economic growth. During 2013, my Department will continue to support the work of the Economic Management Council, which normally meets on a weekly basis. It plays a key role in overseeing the Government's programme in the context of economic planning and budgetary matters, negotiations with the EU-ECB-IMF troika, and banking policy. The Cabinet committee on economic recovery and jobs is primarily focused on delivery of the Action Plan for Jobs and other policies to support job creation and the restoration of economic activity. The monitoring group for Action Plan for Jobs meets regularly to ensure the delivery of the plan and reports progress to the Cabinet committee.

It also publishes quarterly reports on the implementation and the targets for each quarter. Some 92% of measures in the 2012 Action Plan for Jobs were successfully delivered. I have extended the secondment of two staff from Forfás to my Department for another year to ensure the vigorous implementation of the Action Plan for Jobs in 2013.

A sub-committee also oversees delivery of the Pathways to Work strategy. This aims to transform our activation and labour market policies and to ensure that as many people as possible from the live register return to work.

The Cabinet committee on economic infrastructure seeks to maximise productive investment across the economy. Its work includes the commitments in the programme for Government in regard to NewERA and the support of commercially financed investment in next generation infrastructure and networks. My Department also supports the IFSC Clearing House Group, which provides a forum for the public and private sectors to work together to maximise employment and growth in that sector.

The cabinet committee on climate change and the green economy ensures a co-ordinated approach to this complicated and cross-cutting area of policy. The Cabinet committee on health oversees the ambitious health reform process, following through on the Future Health framework which was published last November. The Cabinet Committee on Social Policy has responsibility for relevant reforms, including areas such as education, carers and older people, while the Cabinet committee on public service reform oversees the Government's extensive programme of these reforms.

The Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears was established last year and met frequently to put in place a framework to help families in mortgage difficulties. This includes enactment of personal insolvency legislation, establishment of an information and advisory service and enhancement of capacity within the banks. It will continue to drive this process during 2013.

The Cabinet committee on Irish and the Gaeltacht seeks to promote the Irish language and to support Gaeltacht communities and Irish-speaking households. The Cabinet committee on european affairs ensures a co-ordinated national approach to European Union affairs and is playing a very important role in Ireland's current Presidency of the EU. Planning and strategic management of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU has been a major focus of my Department during the past 13 months. Throughout 2012 the Department led the preparations, including policy co-ordination across Government, drafting the Irish Presidency and trio Presidency programmes, developing the Presidency website, organising specialised training for Irish working group chairpersons, and planning the calendar of Presidency meetings and events. The Department's focus in 2013 is on co-ordinating, communicating and giving strategic direction to the work of the Presidency, addressing any challenges that may arise, and ensuring that the Irish Presidency delivers results that promote stability, jobs and growth, which are our three pillars, across Europe and in Ireland.

I am pleased with the progress that we have made to date in delivering on the objectives set out in our Presidency programme last January and in driving the EU agenda and its economic recovery forward. The agreement reached by the Presidency on the single supervisory mechanism is an important step in breaking the link between banks and sovereigns, which decision was made last year on 29 June, while the deal that we secured on the capital requirements directive with the European Parliament will provide greater protection to European taxpayers by building stronger banks and limiting banker bonuses. As EU President, Ireland will continue to progress the remaining banking union proposals to promote stability in Europe's banking sector which is required to promote the confidence that the European economy needs to grow and to fund recovery.

Following the agreement reached at the February European Council on the EU's budget from 2014 to 2020, the Presidency will continue to work to secure the assent of the parliament for a budget that will support growth and jobs in Europe. That is not an easy challenge. I have met Presidents Barroso and Schulz for talks on a number of occasions in recent months to secure compromise and to stress the urgent need for an agreement to dispel uncertainty and to fuel the EU's economic recovery. Members should be aware that I travelled to Brussels on Monday with the Tánaiste. I had a meeting with President Barroso and President Schulz on this specific matter and also regarding the deficit for the Union in respect of 2012-13. We reached agreement at that meeting on a convergence of these two matters and formal discussions in respect of the MFF will commence next Monday in trilogue and will be led for the Presidency by the Tánaiste at that meeting. We hope to be able to conclude that during the course of our Presidency.

We are driving the EU's trade agenda forward. Opening up new markets will be essential to future growth within the EU economy. The progress we are making here will facilitate growth in trade and employment for businesses to create jobs and deliver competitive benefits for consumers. While it has required an increase in staffing and expenditure in my Department during 2012 and 2013, we have adopted a very cost-conscious approach towards this Presidency. For example, almost all the meetings are being hosted in State-owned venues like Dublin Castle, thus minimising accommodation and travel costs. I think the citizens of the country understand that to be the case in comparison to Presidencies in previous years.

A successful EU Presidency will enhance Ireland's international standing and reputation. As such, it will complement my Department's ongoing work to support a strategic programme of international engagement based around job creation and increasing trade and exports. During the planning and organisation of these visits my Department will seek to achieve value for money and to minimise any associated costs.

Already this year I have paid a successful and productive visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos where I met a number of current and prospective investors in Ireland as well as international leaders. I travelled to the United States in March for a week long programme of engagements in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle. I met President Obama, Vice President Biden and a number of political and business leaders as well as many Irish community organisations. My main focus was on driving trade, jobs and investment and advancing progress on an EU-US trade agreement and US immigration reform. I have met the organisations associated with that and I am glad to see that progress is being made.

My Department will also support me in my engagement with G8 members in Lough Erne in Fermanagh in June as well as any associated incoming visits. I also expect to participate in other trade and jobs focused international engagements during the year.

When I came to office Ireland was not just in the throes of an economic crisis, but also a reputational crisis. Since then, we have all seen a clear improvement in Ireland's international reputation and in the way that others look at us from abroad. We have made a successful return to the bond markets on a phased basis and we have seen a significant fall in bond yields from 15% down to less than 4%. A number of other reputational indicators also point to a dramatic improvement in Ireland's international reputation over the past year and a half, not the least of which is the continued strong line of both interest and investment here and foreign direct investment but also in the series of announcements being made by international companies.

Another important aspect of the work of my Department is in supporting lasting peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I continue to work very closely with the political leaders in the Northern Ireland Executive and with the British Government to ensure that the continued implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is fulfilled. Events in Belfast in recent months show us that there is still a great deal of work to be done and no room for any complacency. Building relationships between divided communities takes time, sustained effort and investment. Last year, I initiated a series of visits with families of victims on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland as a sign of my own desire to help find a lasting resolution to the deep and emotional trauma and hurt of the past. I will continue my engagement with the victims of the conflict with a number of meetings scheduled for later this year. These include residents from Ballymurphy and yesterday we had invitations from relatives of the victims of the Omagh bomb. As is normal before any such meetings take place, officials from my Department met with these personnel and the same will happen in these cases.

North-South economic co-operation remains a priority for the Government. Last year, I attended two plenary sessions of the North-South Ministerial Council which continues to work very well. I will chair the next plenary meeting of the council in July in Dublin. Members will be aware that issues such as road developments, health co-operation, connections across the Border and issues in regard to Departments are all part of these discussions. The work between both Ministers and their counterparts, by and large, is very good and progress has been made in a number of areas to which we can legitimately point.

In January 2012 I hosted the British-Irish Council, BIC, summit in Dublin Castle. I also attended two other BIC summit meetings in Cardiff and Edinburgh. The next BIC summit meeting will be held in Derry in June.

We continue to deepen our partnership with the British Government. I met with the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, recently in London and we renewed our support for the joint statement agreed in March 2012, setting out areas for enhanced co-operation across a wide range of areas of mutual interest, including economic co-operation and trade and investment.

Another priority for my Department in 2013 is the referendum on the abolition of Seanad Éireann. The Department has an allocation of €2.1 million to fund the cost of the referendum. Work on drafting the necessary constitutional amendment Bill to abolish the Seanad is proceeding and it is the intention to publish the Bill in the current Dáil session. That will allow time for a full debate on the Bill prior to a referendum later in the year.

Last year the Convention on the Constitution was established under my Department and its work has gained momentum this year. The convention has held three working meetings to date and has already submitted its first report. I am sure members will agree that this represents a significant amount of progress in a relatively short space of time. The convention is, of course, independent of Government and reports directly to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government has given a formal commitment to respond to recommendations from the convention within four months of the laying of the relevant reports before the Houses. The Government’s response will be debated in both Houses.

My Department has also made an allocation of €1.6 million for the Moriarty tribunal. The tribunal is currently dealing with applications for third-party costs. The sole member has indicated to my Department that the majority of applications for costs have been considered by him and that he anticipates completing his consideration of the remaining applications in the coming months. A new legal costs unit has been set up in the State Claims Agency which will deal with bills of costs from third parties at tribunals of inquiry. That will help to manage these costs as effectively as possible.

My Department’s Estimate includes an allocation of €2 million for the National Economic and Social Council, NESC. Its 2013 work programme builds on its earlier work on the promotion of recovery and employment andwill also identify a number of cross-cutting economic, social and environmental challenges for deeper study and to develop policy recommendations. The council’s staff and budget have been considerably reduced in recent years. In addition, a number of its staff have been assigned to work on priority issues in my Department and other Departments.
In respect of Vote 3 on the Office of the Attorney General, the office hasa net budget of €14.317 million. This is broken into €12.914 million for the administration subheads, €2.191 million for programme expenditure and an appropriation-in-aid of €788,000. The majority of the administrative expenditure relates to staff salaries, which will cost €8.949 million in 2013. The next largest expenditure is provided for in subhead A4 and is €2.103 million in respect of the Law Reform Commission. Funds for the operation of the commission are channelled through the Attorney General's office Vote as a grant-in-aid. Since 2008 the office has reduced its gross budget by almost 17%. Measures taken include reductions in expenditure wherever possible and a 28% reduction in administrative staff numbers. Staff losses have been confined to administrative positions in order to avoid any interruption of the core work of the office, that is, the provision of legal advice and drafting services to its clients.

The total amount under Vote 5, which is for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is €37.414 million. This provides for the salaries and expenses of the director and her staff, the cost of the local state solicitor service, fees to counsel engaged by the director to prosecute cases in the various courts, and legal costs awarded against the State arising out of judicial review and other legal proceedings. The Estimate for 2013 represents a drop of 4%, or €1.433 million, over expenditure in 2012. The biggest single factor in this drop is the reduction in the provision made in input A4, general law expenses. This covers the payment of legal costs awarded by the courts in judicial review matters and other applications connected to legal proceedings. Expenditure in 2012 included the cost of settling a small number of unusually expensive cases. The other main factor driving the reduction is the effect of anticipated savings from pay cuts under the new public sector pay agreement.

In respect of Vote 6, the gross 2013 Estimate for the Office of the Chief State Solicitor Office is €31.776 million. Within the administrative budget, salaries, wages and allowances account for just over €14.4 million out of a total of €17.2 million. A figure of €14.6 million is allocated for the payment of legal fees incurred by the office. This can be broken down into an amount of €11.85 million for counsel fees, €2.5 million for general law expenses and €248,000 for the use of external solicitors. The remaining €2.9 million is attributable to the general running costs of the office and includes provision for items such as IT services, training, security, cleaning, utilities and the upkeep of offices. The figures for salary and legal expenses combined account for 97% of the net allocation in the Revised Estimates of €29.92 million. Appropriations-in-aid are estimated at €1.86 million and will include legal costs recovered by the office along with the recoupment of the pension levy. In conclusion, I thank members for their attention and I commend these Estimates to the committee.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach is very welcome to the committee this afternoon. I am pleased that he took time to be here personally. That is much appreciated. It is not all about the Dáil Chamber. It is good to see the Taoiseach taking the time to come to a committee meeting even if it is directly related to his Department.

I wish to make a few observations that arose during the course of the Taoiseach’s address. I do not have a prepared script. I have a series of questions to which the Taoiseach can respond in the allocated time. He said the Estimate is based on the Croke Park II Labour Relations Commission, LRC, figures that have been rejected by public servants and he is looking at other arrangements through the LRC to see if a revised approach can be taken. I do not refer to the global figures. The Taoiseach seems determined that the savings will come from public pay but there will definitely be a change to some extent in the breakdown between Departments of the savings under the Croke Park agreement. As the Estimate before us is based on something that is not expected to happen, given that the agreement has been rejected, will it be necessary for him to come back with a Revised Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate as a result of the changes? I am sure the Government is keen to seek an alternative method to achieve savings. Could the Taoiseach elaborate on the issue?

One of the biggest issues on the agenda of the Taoiseach’s Department is the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. I do not know what the outcome will be. Many say the Seanad should be reformed and that the method of election to it should be changed. Others, including the Taoiseach, have the view that the Seanad should be abolished. We will not fight the campaign on the issue today; we will leave it for another day. I am concerned about a trend that has emerged since the Taoiseach came to office on the holding of referendums. Previously, the majority of the funding available for a referendum campaign was given to the Referendum Commission. In previous referendums a budget of, for example, €2 million or €4 million was provided and the Referendum Commission handled all the publicity and information for the campaign. However, the Taoiseach changed the system. A budget of approximately €4 million was provided for the stability treaty referendum last year, of which €2 million was allocated to the Taoiseach’s Department and another €2 million to the Referendum Commission. For the first time ever the Government did not trust the independent Referendum Commission and, through the Taoiseach’s Department and Government Information Services, set up a website to promote a view of the referendum. The treaty was printed and other expenditure was incurred by the Department on web design, graphic design, IT work, media buying, advertising, advertorial, translation, Braille costs and other miscellaneous costs and contingencies. Where is the independence in what was done in that regard? A total of €1.5 million was spent by the Department.

The Referendum Commission had to deal with matters such as legal and advertising costs, including the cost of the press campaign. Would it not be better to give the entire budget to the independent Referendum Commission? I fail to understand the reason a Government which has a particular point of view should use taxpayers' money to promote a website through a Government office as opposed to an independent office. That situation was repeated with regard to the children's referendum. That did not involve the Taoiseach's Department, but the same principle on spending that he established for last year's stability treaty referendum applied. He mentioned a figure for €2 million in the 2013 Estimates for the Seanad referendum. Is that further spending by the Taoiseach's Department or the Referendum Commission? He might explain that to the committee. When it came to the children's referendum last year, the Taoiseach did the same again. The line Department had its own budget to put its point of view, which is taxpayers' money.

It is not the Government's Constitution; it is the people's Constitution. All the funding for the referendum should be channelled through a referendum commission and not through any line Department, be it the Taoiseach's Department, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs or any other Department. It is a new development in the past two referenda. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider that because it added to the controversy. Last year, the Taoiseach put information about the stability treaty on his Department's website and as the referendum had not yet been called, he probably felt he was not obliged to meet obligations of fairness and impartiality. That is not helpful to the case. I will not get into the merits of the abolition or otherwise of the Seanad. I am talking about the Estimate, the spending and how the Taoiseach goes about moving that.

The next issue with which I want to deal is the Constitutional Convention. The Taoiseach might indicate to the committee his timetable for various decisions that will be made by that body that has met three times this year. Will he accept and implement all its recommendations or is it just a talking shop and the Government will pick and choose the ones on which it will move?

On that convention, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, mentioned another referendum on the courts issue. Why do we have this convention if the real business of amendments to the Constitution are being done separately? The Taoiseach is giving it the smaller piece of work to do.

The document states that one of the objectives of the Taoiseach's Department and the Government is to exit the EU-IMF programme, which we entered in 2010 and is to be completed by December 2013. Is the Taoiseach aware of any reason Ireland should not exit the EU-IMF programme in line with the original agreement in 2010 that it would be a three-year programme, given that all the quarterly reports from the troika have been favourable in terms of targets?

The Taoiseach might discuss in detail one Cabinet sub-committee. He mentioned many of them but how often does the health committee meet and what work is it doing? Health is an issue that affects every family. I do not want to get into the politics of the Department of Health but it is the one issue on which there has been a lack of progress in terms of waiting lists, general practitioner cover and so on.

I have two broad questions on the legal offices under the Taoiseach's Department, namely, the Office of the Attorney General, the Chief State Solicitor's office, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. What is the working relationship of those offices with the State Claims Agency, which handles many of the claims against the State, in terms of trying to reduce costs? Which office has the main working relationship with the State Claims Agency, which comes under the National Treasury Management Agency? I presume there must be a good deal of communication. The point I make continually on this issue is that if the State was to admit liability early in many High Court cases rather than five or six years after the event, it would be less traumatic for the people involved and far more cost-effective from the point of view of the State. People get entrenched as the years pass if there has not been an apology or an acknowledgement of what went on in a hospital or whatever.

I put another suggestion to the Taoiseach for him to consider for the future. He cannot do it now as it would require a major change. It concerns the cost of State representation in court cases. In the past year, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, spoke about reducing public sector allowances, on which there has been a good deal of debate. The Committee of Public Accounts examined that issue and an allowance we found to be excellent value was the small allowance of approximately €5,000 to Garda inspectors who handle the prosecutions in all the District Courts throughout the country. That was outstanding value for money in that for a small extra allowance, the respective inspectors in the different areas were able to handle all the District Court cases.

In a minority of cases the accused would have senior counsel representing them but I put it to the Taoiseach that somewhere within the State employment, perhaps not the Garda but through employees of the Chief State Solicitor's office, rather than always hiring senior counsel to handle these cases in the Circuit Court, many of the prosecutions on behalf of the State could be done by State employees on a salary rather than paying barristers an hourly rate. I am not talking about the Central Criminal Court, the High Court or the Supreme Court where the best legal brains in the country are needed, but the current system is working effectively under the radar at District Court level at a very effective cost to the taxpayer. Could that be examined? It could not be done by the Garda inspectors. It would have to be somebody with legal training, but people in some of the State offices could do the prosecutions in the Circuit Court on a salary basis rather than an hourly rate basis.

Regarding the President's Establishment, this may sound like a minor issue but it is a topic in everybody's mind. How much has the Taoiseach provided in the Estimate for the local property tax for Áras an Uachtaráin to be paid this year? I am sure the first citizen would want to give a good example by ensuring it is paid on time. The Taoiseach might indicate how much is estimated for that.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's contribution lasted ten minutes and therefore I will ask the Taoiseach-----

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am finished. I have put all my questions.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot have a lengthy discussion on this-----

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When it comes to the Votes, I am happy for the Taoiseach to respond in whatever manner later. I will defer to the next speaker.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Brian Stanley.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach and his officials for attending this afternoon. The main issue I am concerned about is Croke Park II. The Taoiseach confirmed for the previous speaker that the Estimates are prepared on the basis of factoring in the €300 million in cuts for that. My concern is that the Labour Relations Commission talks have been extended by a few days but there is a huge gap to be filled in terms of the position of the public sector trade unions and the position of the Government. Even if he was given an extra two or three months, never mind two or three days, Mr. Kieran Mulvey has his work cut out for him to try to bridge that gap. Given the short period available to him and the gap to be narrowed, does the Taoiseach expect success from the negotiations? The entire budget is predicated on achieving the €300 million in cuts. The Taoiseach might answer that question.

In the event of him not achieving success at the end of those negotiations in the coming days, is it the Taoiseach's intention to bring forward legislation quickly to provide for 7% cuts across public sector pay? What are his intentions in that regard?

Regarding the free general practitioner, GP, care, the Taoiseach confirmed in recent days that while that was due to be rolled out in the first year - we are now into year three - it has been put on ice due to potential legal problems. We are to provide free GP care for people on the long-term illness scheme. Could the Taoiseach confirm how much was allocated for that, and what will happen to the money earmarked for that this year in regard to the long-term illness scheme?

My final question pertains to the property tax, that is, the house tax. Given that this is a new tax and the Government is experiencing some difficulties and some difficulties remain regarding the household charge from last year, has the Government estimated how much the shortfall may be in the collection of the property tax for half a year? If so, how does the Government intend to bridge that gap?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to the agreed timetable, we do not have slots for members from Government parties to speak but if anyone wishes to put a question to the Taoiseach on his statement, I will take one or two questions.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his attendance and will make a couple of brief points. First, it is encouraging to see the Department of the Taoiseach coming in well within budget last year despite the additional pressures of the fiscal treaty, the European Union Presidency and the tribunal costs. I would appreciate the Taoiseach's view on the issue raised by Deputy Sean Fleming regarding the information booklets. As past Administrations had a record of losing referendums - "If you don't know vote "No"" was the mantra of the "No" side in previous referendums - one deficiency was the provision of information from an early stage. I would also appreciate ascertaining whether the Taoiseach or his Department has given thought to either the McKenna or the Crotty judgment. Ireland must be one of the few democracies globally in which one can elect a Government on a platform and agenda of introducing various referendums but in which the Government cannot then use the apparatus of government to put forward its side of the argument. I seek the Taoiseach's views in this regard.

On the issue of referendum commissions and so on, due to the large number of referendums the present Government has held and intends to hold, has the Taoiseach given thought either to putting the referendum commission on a permanent basis or establishing something like an electoral commission? Such a commission could consider broader issues including voter education and voter registration to encourage the maximum amount of information being put into the public domain, as well as greater participation in various electoral ballots.

I will make three further points. In his statement, the Taoiseach spoke of the transformation of his Department into a Cabinet office. He might expand on this aim because everyone who is in politics sees that when issues fall between the cracks, they are not the responsibility of any single Department. The Taoiseach might outline to members the efforts his Department is taking to bridge such issues.

I would appreciate the Taoiseach's view on tribunals in general because he has inherited a position in which at least some of the costs of both the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals must be met by the taxpayer. In looking back at the actions of the previous Government in establishing tribunals and with the benefit of hindsight, does the Taoiseach agree this is probably not the most efficient or cost-effective method of getting to the truth of an issue of public concern? Does he have thoughts on how it could be done better? In this context, I refer to the lack of preparation put into meeting costs arising from the Mahon tribunal. The Committee of Public Accounts discovered that although the Mahon tribunal had been under way for years, at no point had the previous Government set aside a fund to help meet the eventual costs of that tribunal.

My final question pertains to the EU Presidency. The Taoiseach pointed out his Department has managed to reduce the budge of the Presidency. Ireland has had what most people would consider thus far to have been a successful Presidency. Does the Taoiseach believe this is proof that Ireland can run a cost-effective Presidency and perhaps must learn from the mistakes of past Presidencies of engaging in too much razzmatazz, such as bringing the Presidency on a road show to the constituency of every Minister in the country? Does he believe this is not the way the Government must do its business?

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his attendance. While a provision of €2.1 million has been made for the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, I could not discern a figure for an information campaign whereas in the previous referendum campaign, approximately €2 million was put into such a campaign. In respect of travel, I accept the Government has been very careful in its travel policy to ensure it gets best value. However, I ask the Taoiseach to consider the possibility that it is being too politically correct. The pilot of the Government jet must maintain a certain number of air miles and consequently the jet must take off. I appreciate the freedom of information request will be on how much did it cost for X number of miles flown by the Government jet but could the Government be costing itself money by allowing the pilot of the State jet to fly air miles without passengers?

As for fees for counsel, is my understanding correct that while several reductions were outlined in the Taoiseach's document bringing about a reduction in fees to counsel, the Estimates include a figure of approximately €12.5 million because they have taken on additional work? Are counsels adjusting their work rate or the amount of work they are taking on and still getting an increase in salary?

I also wish to raise one of my hobbyhorses, about which I am greatly concerned, namely, the International Financial Services Centre Clearing House Group. While I always have had concerns about the access it has had at the top level, duplication in this regard recently has been noted given the number of State services that interconnect with the IFSC. Consequently, is there a need for the Clearing House Group to get access at such a high level? Finally, on the Moriarty tribunal and the outstanding costs regarding payments for Messrs. Haughey and Lowry - I take it that it is to their legal representatives - the Taoiseach should consider putting in an additional Estimate to allow the Moriarty tribunal to look again at the information on tape that was published by the Sunday Independent. I believe it to be a matter of public interest that a small section should be taken to look at those tapes to ascertain whether it constitutes new information and whether it should be reviewed. Should a provision be made in the departmental Estimates to do this?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his attendance. First, I support Deputy Harris and disagree with Deputy Sean Fleming. As I believe the McKenna and Crotty judgments must be examined, does the Taoiseach have observations in that regard? It is wrong that when a Government takes a decision, it cannot advocate and make arguments to support a referendum proposal when it is put forward. There is a view that some clarity is required and perhaps some account taken of the McKenna and Crotty judgments. In addition, the Department of the Taoiseach has been driving the trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States, which have enormous potential for both economic blocs. How are they progressing? I believe that under the American system, they must bring back to the Senate any proposals and consequently there is a view abroad that they have a repeated veto over talks which Europeans do not have. Will there be follow-through on this issue, given that so much work has been put in for six months? To what extent can the expertise be carried forward if progress is not made by the end of June?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will now turn to the individual programmes and corresponding subheads of the relevant Votes. Are there any observations or comments on Vote 1, the President's Establishment, subhead A1 on salaries, wages and allowances?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Taoiseach might respond globally to the observations.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will I first list them all?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the Vice Chairman might be obliged to put them one by one at the end, he can respond globally.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will read them out and then the Taoiseach can respond to each one. Subhead A2 pertains to travel and subsistence, subhead A3 to incidental expenses, subhead A4 to postal and telecommunications services and subhead A5 to office machinery and other office supplies and related services. Are there any comments or questions? As there are none, I ask the Taoiseach to respond in respect of the President's Establishment.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps I will take the questions that have come from the Deputies and the sub-committee can go through the individual Votes at the end. I believe the normal procedure is that the Chairman would put the Votes individually. I will try to answer some of the questions that were raised.

Deputy Sean Fleming raised the question about Croke Park II. Clearly, the discussions and negotiations that are going on at present with the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission are sensitive. They are important in the context of the reputation of the country and the fact we have come such a long way under highly challenging conditions. As the Deputies are aware, the Government's position remains that €300 million in savings must be acquired this year, rising to €1 billion by 2015.

I was asked if that means there will be a different set of statistics in terms of the Vote of this Department or any other. Clearly, one must wait until the weekend to see what is the outcome. The Minister will be reported to by the chairman on Monday and he will give the Government his formal response and outlook on Tuesday at the Cabinet meeting. I suppose, technically speaking, if one were to say that there would be a change in the way that the €300 million is acquired from or through each of the Departments, it might mean that, but I hope that does not happen and that we can achieve the outcome.

On the abolition of the Seanad, Deputy Kevin Humphreys put his finger on an important issue here. In the past, there was always a situation where the Government of the day felt it appropriate to have an information campaign about whatever the issue might be. This applied in the case of the fiscal stability treaty where Government took a clear view that it was important that the citizens of the country should know what it was about and went ahead with an information campaign. In the case of the children's referendum, the position was followed, the High Court gave a view and the Supreme Court made its findings clear. As a result, there will not be any information campaign from the Government on the referendum for the abolition of the Seanad.

The €2.1 million is for the setting up of the Referendum Commission. When the Government decides that a referendum will be held, it, through the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, notifies the Chief Justice of the intention to hold a referendum and in this case the Chief Justice will in due course nominate a judge to chair that commission to deal with the mechanics of the referendum. The cost of the referendum will be borne by the sponsoring Department. In that sense, the Government fully complies here with the ruling of the Supreme Court.

As to whether this means that we should look at the question of the Crotty and McKenna judgments to which several Deputies referred, this is a tightly constrained situation on any Government. There are aspects of both McKenna and Crotty on which I have reflected in the past and to which I might return in the future, but in respect of this referendum we set up the commission for which there is €2.1 million, the Chief Justice will nominate whoever she considers appropriate to chair that commission, and it will go off and do its business.

Deputy Sean Fleming mentioned the Constitutional Convention. This was set up last year. It is independent in the way it goes about its business. As the committee will be aware, it is made up of public representatives and 66 citizens chosen at random through a reputable organisation. They, themselves, have displayed enormous enthusiasm for the work in which they have been involved.

On whether it is a talking shop, we committed to involve the citizens in this process and gave them a number of areas of suggested work that they should consider. The first three of these were to deal with the question of the voting age, the involvement of citizens in the presidency and the question of a reduction in the voting age of presidential candidates. The reason for those more simplified cases was to see how effectively the convention would work.

The Government agreed to respond within four months to a submitted report and that if the Government decided to accept any or all of the recommendations of any of the reports, it would respond and give an indicative timeline as to when a referendum would be held if it stated it agreed with recommendation X or Y.

The Constitutional Convention has submitted its first report to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. He will prepare a memorandum for Government based on the discussions and recommendations of the convention and the Government will make its decision, publish and have a discussion in the Dáil about it.

The second report in respect of the second body of work done by the convention will be submitted by July. That includes, for instance, the sensitive social issue of the question of gay marriage which was a mandate given to the convention to consider. That will be the subject of discussion by Government and response in respect of the second report submitted by the convention. There are other areas it is moving on to discuss, in respect of the electoral system, Dáil elections, etc. I might point out for members that prior to the setting up of the convention the Government took a clear position in respect of the question to be asked of the people about the abolition of the Seanad. That Bill is being prepared and will be published in the next matter of weeks.

Deputy Sean Fleming asked if there are reasons we should not adhere to the original agreement to exit the EU-IMF programme. We expect to exit the programme at the end of the year. This has been a very challenging time for the people of the country and I suppose, in practical terms, it is necessary to discuss with the troika, as both Ministers have been doing, how we can exit the programme safely and with whatever buffers may be provided in respect of unforeseen shocks that might happen internationally. Those discussions are ongoing but there is no reason to suggest that we would change from our commitment to exit the programme at the year end as we have eased ourselves by degree back into the international financial markets.

The cabinet committee on health meets every month. It meets again on Monday. It has met six or eight times this year. Clearly, the structures in the system that has operated in health for many years have required a direct focus from Government. Often the Minister and the Department and the HSE were at loggerheads and proceeding in different directions on similar issues and there was non-acceptance of responsibility by individual areas for sensitive sections of the health system which affects everybody. Some time ago I had a meeting with those dealing with ageing society. When one considers that many of the children being born in hospital this week will live 100 years and inside the next two decades it is expected that people will live to the age of 110 or 120 because of advances in medical sciences, this means that, with the world population expanding at an enormous rate, people will probably draw pensions for longer than they worked and the cost of treatment of medicine worldwide will increase proportionately. Health is as important to us in Ireland as to anyone else. Clearly, the initiative launched by Government in respect of the Presidency about well-being and health initiatives is important when one considers, for instance, as the Chairman will be aware from his medical profession, that we in Ireland face almost 0.25 million diabetics coming down the line in the next 20 years and 90% of this is preventable in terms of information, activity, diet, etc. In being able to deal with that, the saving to the country and to the people would be enormous.

As I stated, the Cabinet committee met eight times. It meets every month and meets again on Monday next. We must now consider issues such as the GP card and various other structures in health. I will deal with one of those questions that comes up later.

As I understand it, the relationship between the DPP, the CSSO and the State Claims Agency is a good working relationship. The CSSO provides solicitor services to the State Claims Agency in some cases. It is also used as external solicitors. It is a separate entity. It is under the Department of Finance. I think the relationships are fairly good. If there is something not working there, we would be happy to look at it.

I have felt for many years that in many cases - as perhaps members of the Bench, if one spoke to them, would say - that the biggest requirement in judicial analysis and decision is common sense. It is true that many cases are settled on the steps of the court and people would say afterwards, "Why could this not have been arrived at before we got this far?" Deputy Sean Fleming certainly has a point here. I note, for instance, that the cost of legal cases on child care last year was of the order of €25 million.

These are charged at hourly rates by barristers. One often wonders about the effectiveness of the scheme. We are examining it with the Cabinet committee on health at present.

I do not know what indicative value the Revenue Commissioners have put on the residential part of Áras an Uachtaráin. I am sure the information is in the possession of the Uachtarán or the staff, or would be if they clicked onto the local property tax website. Institutions are exempt, as the Deputy knows.

Deputy Stanley asked about the Labour Relations Commission. Mr. Kieran Mulvey is negotiating at present. I hope progress can be made but I know it is difficult. Some unions were for the deal and others were against it. As far as the Government was concerned, the Croke Park II proposals were the most comprehensive and exhaustive. They were very fair across the board and focused on those who earn most and who can bear the cost of paying more. We will await what happens over the weekend.

If Croke Park II had been accepted on the first vote, legislation would have been necessary to deal with elements of it in any event. When the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was asked about legislation in respect of the agreement, the answer he gave was obviously based on the totality of the savings to be achieved over the period between now and 2015. The discussions are ongoing. I commend everybody who has accepted responsibility to play a part in having our country come out of the economic crisis we have found ourselves in. I hope common sense will prevail and that the discussions with the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission, while recognising that some of the unions approved of the agreement by vote while others did not, will result in an opportunity for the country to emerge from the economic challenge and crisis we face.

In looking at the international economy, which is running very strongly, I recognise that our indigenous economy has been flat for quite some time and that this is where confidence needs to be injected. Deputy Stanley should note I never contemplate failure in politics. Nobody with a belief that things can work should do so. I hope they will work. I know this is not an easy position for anybody but I hope we can arrive at a sensible and progressive outcome that will achieve the requirements stipulated by the Government, namely €300 million in savings this year, rising to €1 billion by 2015.

With regard to the question on general practitioner care, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, has a number of sensitive areas to deal with. He examined the question of extending free general practitioner care to persons with long-stay illness. They amount to 60,000 and all the cases are very serious. Their determination as being in the long-stay illness category was based on income and residency. A free GP service for this first sector would require a new legal base, new administrative capacity, and panels of doctors to assess medically whether patients have long-term illness. The Minister of State asked whether he should not examine the entire scheme because the intention is to have every citizen covered ultimately by the general practitioner care service. His point, which I support, is if one puts all one’s effort into focusing on one admittedly important element, requiring the establishment of a legal and administrative base with medical requirements, one will still only have dealt with a very small sector. The Minister of State asked for a number of weeks in which to examine the scheme in its totality with a view to bringing back proposals to make it more cost effective and effective in the patients’ interest. The committee on health gave him the imprimatur to do that work. I expect he will report within a number of weeks.

The mechanics of the property tax are being operated by the Revenue Commissioners, which expect a compliance rate of over 90%. The members are aware of the extensive authority that the Revenue Commissioners have to deduct at source, if necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. The Revenue Commissioners have pointed out the extensive range of opportunities for people to comply with the property tax guidelines. By and large, the rumour or speculation that ordinary citizens would be paying thousands of euro was not true. People who live in apartment blocks have said to me that the assessed local property tax is one fifth or one sixth of what they are actually paying to management companies in some cases. I have heard commercial interests state the rates they pay are only a fraction of what they must pay for entertainment facilities for commercial premises. The local property tax is for local services and the take-up by citizens is very strong. I expect and hope that, before 28 May, the target set by the Revenue Commissioners will be reached. The Revenue Commissioners have set out their powers to follow through in respect of the non-compliant. This will not be the same as the request from local authorities to pay up in respect of the local household charge. Clearly, the Revenue Commissioners will deal with that matter after the local property tax is dealt with. More people are realising that now.

On the question as to whether the referendum commission should be put on a permanent basis, we made a decision on this in January last year. We have not yet followed through on it because of the uncertainty as to the number of referendums that will be held. As members know, the Government decided this year to have a referendum on the future of the Seanad and on the court of civil appeal. Both of these will be held in the autumn when the Government considers the report from the Constitutional Convention on the matters it has decided on. We will determine whether there is a need for the Government to make a decision to have a third referendum or more. Were it to happen, it would not be necessary to have a referendum commission for each. The person appointed to chair one referendum commission could do the work in respect of two or more, if necessary. It does not follow that if there were four referendums, there would have to be four referendum commissions. We have included in the Department’s Estimate €2.1 million for one referendum commission and we notified the Chief Justice. The Minister has written to her and she will make her appointment in due course.

Deputy Harris referred to the taking of responsibility. Long before the Deputy’s time, Departments often fell between two stools such that responsibility for an issue could be moved between one Department and another. For example, a report on disability that was required to be dealt with was being transferred between Departments and agencies. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, said she would take responsibility for the report and she published it. Another example pertains to social enterprise. Responsibility fell between the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Social Protection. Forfás produced a report and said it is more applicable to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which has all the necessary facilities. I examined the matter to determine what body should be responsible. Since Minister of State Sean Sherlock was anxious to undertake the body of work, he has been given authority to do it. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will nominate an appropriate official in his Department to work with the Minister of State to ensure the job is done. I do not like to see circumstances where clear responsibility is not allocated. An example that arose just yesterday concerns Deputy Stanton, who is dealing with the question of autism and associated matters. I have asked him to come before the Cabinet sub-committee to make his case on where priority should lie. We will allocate responsibility for the issues about which he speaks.

The fees for counsel are due to the increased volume of work, so the sum of €12.5 million is because they are doing more work.

As regards the State services with regard to the IFSC, the minutes of all these are published on the Department's website. The Secretary General of my Department chairs the Clearing House Group of the IFSC. I have had occasion to meet with representatives of the companies involved in the IFSC and ask them whether there is an issue of over-extensive regulation or other concerns. I have met them two or three times since my appointment as Taoiseach, but there is a regular meeting with the Secretary General and the minutes of those meetings are published. In regard to the important mobile assets of the financial world, they were concerned that what has grown up here in Dublin should be retained and strengthened. We are the only English-speaking country in the eurozone where our people gave a 60:40 verdict in respect of the fiscal stability treaty, so there is a strong opportunity for continued investment in the financial services sector in Dublin. I have a continual stream of inquiries about that. The Minister for Finance and the IDA talk to these people on a regular basis. The question is a valid one and we are conscious of that matter.

I do not intend to reopen the Moriarty tribunal. That tribunal sat for very many years and finally reported. Third-party costs are being examined. As I said in answer to questions in the Dáil, if somebody out there has more information that is relevant to Moriarty they should bring it to the authorities quickly. When a tribunal is appointed with a sole person in charge, that person has absolute independence in the way they do their business. We are anxious that existing tribunals would come to a close without being pressurised to do so. That is why, for instance, in the case of the Smithwick tribunal the Government sought interim reports to have a fix on where this sole person is moving, without interfering with the work of that tribunal.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I clarify my question? There is real concern out there about what was published. Most people have listened to the tapes. As regards my question, the tribunal is most familiar with the evidence that was given. Could we see whether or not this information was already assessed by the tribunal? Can the Taoiseach make provision in his Department's Estimates for that?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the gardaí are examining that at the moment. Obviously it is not for me to comment on an investigation that is taking place by the Garda Síochána, but I understand the Deputy's question.

Deputy Dara Murphy asked about EU-US trade negotiations. A high-level report was produced from Europe and the United States in respect of the potential and it was generally positive. The outcome could be that 2 million jobs could be created in Europe as well as growing economies by 2% or 3% by setting down world trading conditions between the two greatest trading blocs on the planet - the European Union and the United States. There is therefore serious potential, in particular in the non-tariff areas. During our EU Presidency, we are seeking a mandate for those negotiations to open. I spoke to President Obama about this by telephone after I congratulated him on his re-election. He referred to this matter in his State of the Union address. The work is now going on intensively to see if we can bring this to a conclusion during our EU Presidency. That conclusion would be a mandate for the negotiations to open. Clearly, countries on both sides of the Atlantic would have issues about which they might be deeply concerned, including the agricultural area, IT and - in so far as France is concerned - cultural areas. It would be a big signal for the citizens of Europe and the United States if a mandate were given to open the discussions and move on with them.

To be straight with Deputy Kevin Humphreys, if this were to be followed through, in theory, within 18 months one could conclude a number of improvements for trade either way. As a small country with extensive connections in the US, Ireland is in a strong position to lead this. I hope the mandate will be given to us during our EU Presidency.

I think that deals with most of the questions that were asked.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excellent. I thank the Taoiseach for his remarks. I will now call out the individual programmes and subheadings on the relevant Votes. Vote 1, President's Establishment - Subheads, pages 1 to 7 of briefing notes from the Department: Programme 1, President's Establishment: Subhead A1 - Salaries, Wages and Allowances. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 - Travel and Subsistence. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A3 - Incidental Expenses. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A4 - Postal and Telecommunications services. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A5 - Office Machinery and Other office supplies. Any comments or questions? No. Programme 2, Centenarians' Bounty. Subhead Bl - Administration-Pay. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead B2 - Administration-non Pay. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead B3 - Centenarian Programme. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead C - Appropriations-in-Aid. Any comments or questions? No.

Vote 2, Department of the Taoiseach. Subheads, pages 11 to 45 in briefing note from the Department. Subhead Al - Salaries, Wages and Allowances. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 - Travel and Subsistence. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A3 - Incidental Expenses. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A4 - Postal and Telecommunications. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A5 - Office Equipment and external IT services. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A6 - Office Premises Expenses. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A7 - Consultancy Services. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A8 - EU Presidency. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead B - Appropriations in Aid. Any comments or questions? No.

Programme Expenditure: Subhead A3 - National Economic and Social Development Office. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A4 - Tribunal of Inquiry, payments to Messrs. C.J. Haughey and M. Lowry. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A5 - The Convention on the Constitution. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A6 - Referendum to abolish the Seanad. Any comments or questions? No.

Strategic Priorities: A. Jobs and Growth. Any comments or questions? No. B. Europe. Any comments or questions? No. C. Programme for Government. Any comments or questions? No. D. Service. Any comments or questions? No. E. Trust. Any comments or questions? No. F. Reform. Any comments or questions? No. G. Fairness. Any comments or questions? No. H. Peace. Any comments or questions? No.

Vote 3 - Office of the Attorney General. Subheads, pages 49 to 64, in briefing from the Department. Subhead Al - Salaries, wages and allowances. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (i) - Travel and subsistence. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (ii) - Training and development, and incidental expenses. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (iii) - Postal and telecommunications. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (iv) - Office equipment and other office supplies. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (vi) - Office premises expenses. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (vii) - Consultancy services. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (viii) - Contract legal expertise. Any comments or questions? No. Subhead A2 (ix) - EU Presidency. Any comments or questions? No.

Subhead A(iii) covers contributions to international organisations. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(iv) covers the Law Reform Commission grant-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(v) covers general law expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead B covers appropriations-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions? No.

I will skip Vote 4 and move to Vote 5, which covers the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The relevant sub-heads are set out in pages 77 to 86 in the briefing note from the Department. Subhead A(i) covers salaries, wages and allowances. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(ii) covers travel and subsistence. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(iii) covers training and development and incidental expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(iv) covers postal and telecommuication services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(v) covers office equipment and external IT services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(vi) covers office premises expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(vii) covers consultancy services and value-for-money and policy reviews. Are there any comments or questions? No. Input A3 refers to fees to counsel. Are there any comments or questions? No. Input A4 covers general law expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Input A5 covers local state solicitor services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead B covers appropriations-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions? No.

Vote 6 covers the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the relevant subheads are set out in pages 87 to 105 of the briefing note from the Department. Subhead A(i) covers salaries, wages and allowances. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(ii) covers travel and subsistence. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(iii) covers training and development. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(iv) covers postal and telecommunications. Are there any comments or questions? No.

Subhead A(v) covers office machinery and other office supplies and related services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(vi) covers office premises expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A(vii) covers consultancy services and value-for-money and policy reviews. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A3 covers external legal services. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A4 covers fees to counsel. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead A5 covers general law expenses. Are there any comments or questions? No. Subhead B covers appropriations-in-aid. Are there any comments or questions? No.

I thank the Taoiseach and his officials for assisting the committee in the consideration of the Revised Estimates thus far.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the committee for their attendance and the efficient manner in which they have gone through the Revised Estimates. I thank the Secretary General and, through him, the staff of the Department of the Taoiseach for the work they do on a constant basis. Only I know the extent of the work that goes into the dealings of the Department under my control. It is a smaller Department in which many public servants work long, extended hours as issues arise which must be dealt with. I thank them for that.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must attend in the Dáil to discuss a Topical Issue matter.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman for giving me the opportunity to present the Revised Estimates for the Central Statistics Office to the committee. The CSO is responsible for the collection, processing and publication of official statistics on economic, social and general conditions in Ireland. While its main focus is to meet the statistical requirements of Government, the information published by the CSO is also used by other public bodies, businesses, universities, research institutes and the general public. There is a significant international dimension to the work of the CSO. EU institutions, the IMF, OECD and other international bodies are all important users of official statistics. These bodies also have a significant role in defining standards for the compilation of comparable information. The CSO subscribes to the UN's fundamental principles of official statistics and the European statistics code of practice.

Net expenditure in 2012 amounted to €37.593 million, which included the costs of publishing the results of the 2011 census of population. A series of census reports was published in the course of 2012, including the main volumes of results and ten profile reports on key topics. All of these reports provided interpretation, analysis and illustration of the results. The CSO has also published census results in map format in co-operation with the All-Ireland Research Observatory at NUI Maynooth. The net allocation for 2013 is €39.758 million, which includes funding for a wealth survey - the first of its kind to be undertaken by the CSO - and the 2013 farm structure survey. In addition, the allocation provides funding for advance preparations for the 2015-2016 household budget survey and for the 2016 census of population. The CSO is also implementing a long-term programme of changes in the way it organises household surveys to meet future information needs as efficiently as possible.

In 2013, the CSO will publish about 300 releases and publications. All statistics are published online and members of the public are increasingly aware of and can access statistics and indicators on the social, economic and environmental issues which affect their daily lives. The CSO's statement of strategy gives priority to delivering the core statistics needed for policy while maintaining a strong focus on cost reduction. The office continues to meet all of its commitments under the public service reform programme and is implementing a programme of continuous business process improvement in the collection and processing of statistics. The CSO is taking a lead role in developing the Irish statistical system by working closely with other Departments and public bodies to promote a more coherent approach to meeting data needs and extending the statistical use of administrative data. The office is preparing standards and a code of practice on statistics to support its work with other Departments. Making better use of data throughout the public sector is an important part of public service reform and will contribute to more evidence-informed decision-making and improved measuring of policy outcomes. Improved co-ordination also contributes to reducing the burden on data providers. Between 2008 and 2011, the CSO reduced the response burden of its non-agricultural business surveys by 28%. Similarly, it has been able to remove 25 questions from the annual June agricultural survey by re-using administrative data on cattle and cereals already provided by farmers.

The CSO Vote for 2013 provides for a total of 660 staff compared with 648 staff in 2012. The small increase in staffing reflects the cyclical nature of the work of the office and the introduction of new surveys this year. The long-term trend in core staff numbers is significantly downward.

In conclusion, I commend the values and principles which inform the CSO's work. The CSO makes an important contribution to Ireland's public policy by providing a high-quality and, most importantly, independent statistical service.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I pay tribute to the CSO and its staff for the wonderful way in which they use modern technology to present and make statistics so accessible to the public. I was at an event in my constituency today at which a lady was able to inform me of a very particular fact about the demographics of the town we were in. She knew it based on the census information she had garnered from the CSO's website. At a time of economic and resource difficulties for the CSO and every other organisation, the office continues to step up to the plate. I commend it.

The CSO has a great database of facts, information and statistics, the purpose of compiling which is to harness them for the benefit of the State and its people. Some Departments must go further in utilising the information which is available, however.

In my home town of Greystones we know through the Central Statistics Office, CSO, how many children will turn five each year and will need a school place. However, coming up to September we constantly have this scramble for school places and concern among parents that there will not be an adequate number of school places. I am not sure why the Department of Education and Skills cannot utilise statistical figures more effectively. Is the Minister of State satisfied that that Department is fully harnessing figures from the CSO? Will he convey my concern to the Department and ask that it pay greater attention to CSO figures for children starting school?

The previous Government had given a commitment to the inclusion of a question on autism in the census form. However, for whatever reason, this did not happen in the last census, even though the former Taoiseach was committed to it. Members of the Government are also committed to it, but it never seems to happen. Ireland has one of the worst databanks on the incidence of autism in the European Union. Will the Minister of State and his officials give consideration to including a specific question on autism in the next census? If one does not have the statistics or the facts, it is hard to plan services.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Vote for a sum of €40 million is the largest of the six under consideration. I am interested to know how Departments are using data generated by the CSO. Do they request information from it? To what extent can they drive the CSO’s work programme and have an input into data gathering? At €39.6 million, it is a resource that should be used to the fullest extent. To what extent is there co-ordination across the European Union and the OECD to ensure data from member states can be compared or contrasted?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the administration side of the Vote, I note the figure for training, development and incidental expenses has increased by 63%. What was the reason for the increase? I must commend the Department for passing on the material from the CSO to Members, too.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason for the increase is down to the census when a significant number of extra staff are brought into the CSO. This will continue for two years, with the collection of data in one year and its processing the following year. After I was appointed, one of my first jobs was to look for an early Estimate for the CSO to cover the cost of the collection and analysis of data for the 2011 census.

I thank Deputy Simon Harris for his kind comments on the CSO. Every Member will agree that it does a significant amount of work and research, not just for the Government but also for the wider public. Many primary schools use its website for their research. I would like to see more Ministers interacting with the CSO and using its data. I have asked Ministers, not just officials, to engage with the CSO board to find out what information is available. As we are spending a large amount of taxpayers’ money, any information gathered should be utilised effectively.

Deputy Simon Harris is correct about the Department of Education and Skills. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, sat down with the CSO board as there is a large amount of information relevant to her Department. There are other Departments, however, which are not utilising the CSO to the very best.

As for the questions on the census form, the CSO has consulted widely on including autism as the subject of a question. In the last census there were two questions relating to disability. I am not taking away from the importance of autism, but there are other areas of disability that people would also like to see included. This goes back to the religious question when people ask me why all religions are not included in the form. The CSO is always considering widening the questions on the form.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the CSO for the amount of work it does and the support it gives to the committee. Will it consider making the information it has available to local authorities to assist them in the compilation of the electoral register to ensure its accuracy?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All the information is public. However, the census form covers a house, not the individual.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but there is much information on it that would be relevant to the register of electors.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I encourage local authorities to work on this issue, as well as the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Autism, while disabling to some degree, is a pervasive development disorder. There is a need to capture the number with it. No one in any arm of the State can answer that question. All I ask is that the Minister of State consider including it in the next census, even if it is only on a once-off basis. In the run-up to the next census, he should engage with some of the groups involved and the Health Service Executive on collecting these data.

Perhaps there might be some engagement to try to capture such data because if one looks at them, one will see there is a significant deficit. It is a role the CSO, through the census, could help with.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. Regarding Vote 4 - Central Statistics Office, the subheads are to be found on pages 65 to 75, inclusive, of the briefing documentation from the Department. Subhead A.1 deals with wages, salaries and allowances. Subhead A.2 deals with travel and subsistence. Subhead A.3 deals with training and development and incidental expenses. Subhead A.4 deals with postal and telecommunications services. Subhead A.5 deals with office machinery and other office supplies. Subhead A.6 deals with office premises expenses. Subhead A.7 deals with consultancy services. Subhead A.8 deals with the collection of statistics. Subhead B deals with appropriations-in-aid.