Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and his officials to discuss the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2015-2017. The report updates the multi-annual expenditure ceilings for the three year period 2015 to 2017. The objective of the comprehensive expenditure review process is to provide the Government with a comprehensive set of decision options which serve to realign spending with the revised programme for Government priorities, meet overall fiscal objectives and explore new and innovative ways of delivering Government policy in a reformed public sector.

The format of the meeting will be as follows. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, will make some opening remarks, and a question-and-answer session will follow to clarify any matters. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery that all mobile phones must be switched off. We have had feedback from members of the public that mobile phones which are not switched off are interfering with the public's enjoyment of these committee sessions.

I wish to advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Finally, I remind members of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite the Minister to make his opening remarks.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman and committee for the invitation to meet them today to discuss the 2014 comprehensive review of expenditure. As the joint committee knows, I published the outcome of that review process at budget time in the form of the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2015-2017. All the relevant committees of course will have occasion in the coming few weeks to discuss the outcome of that process in detail with each line Department as they consider the 2015 Revised Estimates. However, it is important that I appear before members today to provide an overview of the process and of the overall outcomes. I look forward to the broad and informative discussion and debate I know will take place on all these key expenditure policy issues.

Over the past number of years, there has been a significant transformation of the budget cycle and of the overall approach to budget planning, on which I will touch. While the comprehensive review process is one element of that, another important element, and perhaps one on which we need to focus further, is how the Dáil, and in particular the committees of the Dáil and the Seanad, engage in and contribute to the budget process. The committees of course scrutinise and approve the annual Estimates and during the course of the year they also investigate and challenge spending policies across each Department of the Government and its agencies. However, in my experience, much of that engagement tends to centre around very short term, immediate issues. Dealing with immediate issues and problems of course is important but frankly, the discussions too often get reduced to gamesmanship, points scoring and party politics. I say that in no partisan way because Members from all sides of the House have engaged in it. However, as someone who is genuinely interested in the business of Parliament, I hope this process can be reformed and that change can be brought about. This is why the comprehensive expenditure report is important. It provides an opportunity, particularly for this committee, to have a much broader and more strategic policy debate around overarching issues and challenges facing public expenditure and policy options into the future. The report sets out an expenditure path for three years ahead. Just as importantly, however, it also raises longer-term expenditure policy matters that extend far beyond any individual Dáil term. Issues such as climate change, demographics and population trends will have an impact on public policy and budget management for the next two decades or more.

The comprehensive review process also included a number of short, targeted policy reviews by the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service and I wish to underscore this point because not everyone will be familiar with that service, which is a relatively new institution. It has been examining difficult issues on pension sustainability and a range of other issues. These issues perhaps are controversial and certainly are politically difficult and sensitive. However, such issues must be raised, examined and debated. Consequently, together with the comprehensive expenditure report, there are published papers which take a long-term view on expenditure policy challenges. These are available on the economic service's website and are presented as objective assessments, rooted in evidence and in the principles of policy analysis. They are intended to challenge and probe existing policies and expenditure approaches but members should not confuse them with Government policy or my views, for that matter. It is open to any of us, including myself, my departmental officials, all Members of the Oireachtas, politicians and the public, to agree or disagree with and challenge the analysis presented objectively by a team of economic experts. What is important, however, is that one supports the principle of evidence-based policy analysis in the public service and that such analysis is produced without veto from Ministers. I make this point because it was interesting to note that some papers we published were criticised as though they were Government policy. It is necessary to allow such rigour and debate and the base analysis must be provided to do this objectively. It is important that there is recognition and consensus that expenditure reviews are a key input into the budgetary debate about how resources should be best allocated. One must accept that all areas should be subject to such review.

A key priority for the Government when it came to power in 2011 was to instigate a broad-ranging and ambitious programme of reform right across the public service. I believe a huge amount has been achieved and in particular and critically in the modernisation of how the public finances are planned and managed. Among the first actions of the new Government in 2011 was one to put in place a new, multi-term budgetary framework to enhance the openness, transparency and structure to the overall budget process and, in particular, the management of public expenditure. The comprehensive review of expenditure process, which the Government undertook for the first time in 2011, is a key component of the medium-term fiscal approach. As a result, members have before them today - in the form of the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2015-2017 - a published three-year, forward-looking plan for public expenditure which sets out clearly the overall fiscal and budgetary context for the period ahead, the Government's priorities for public expenditure and, at an individual Vote level, what the more than €50 billion in current Government spending will deliver for citizens in 2015. It contains an unprecedented level of financial information and programme level detail about what will be delivered by the State over the course of the next few years. This simply was not produced in this form nor made available in any form just a few years ago and the State's budgetary process and decision-making are better for it.

A number of other reform initiatives are also worth mentioning at this stage, including performance budgeting, IrelandStat and the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, and I will deal briefly with each of them. The performance budgeting initiative is an ongoing reform process aimed at aligning spending, that is, what our evaluators call "inputs", with achievements or "outputs". The purpose is to bring clarity as to what Government spending is achieving for citizens and from there to allow for a more informed assessment and discussion of whether what is being delivered is good enough. As part of this reform, for example, the Revised Estimates, which I understand the committees will be considering this week and next week, present both a financial breakdown of programme spending and performance information in the form of short statements about the targets associated with moneys allocated.

In respect of IrelandStat, the Government has launched a new website that provides valuable public information on the performance of Departments across the areas that matter most to the people of Ireland. While the Government is still building up this information, even now it has a lot of detailed and easily-accessible information on areas such as the economy, education, and infrastructure. It is a good comparative website that will be populated fully over time. This reform is being made possible by the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, which the Government decided to establish in 2012 and into which it has been recruiting trained economists and evaluators each year since. At present, more than 70 economists and evaluators are working on policy analysis and economic planning across almost all Civil Service Departments and the Government is still in the process of recruiting more. There clearly was a skills deficit in the system, which the Government is addressing and the positive impact in this regard is becoming increasingly evident. All of this ties in with the broader reform agenda launched recently for Civil Service renewal, which will introduce a much more robust accountability and performance management regime for civil servants, including Accounting Officers.

Turning specifically to the 2014 review process, it is important to draw a distinction between the previous 2011 process, about which I have spoken to the joint committee previously, and this latest exercise. The economic and fiscal backgrounds for each were very different and, therefore, the objectives changed from one process to the next, as did the outcomes. The 2011 comprehensive review of expenditure was undertaken at the height of the economic storm as Ireland battled its way through the first phase of the EU-IMF programme. It was dominated by an urgent need to reduced public expenditure in overall terms but in so doing, to protect key public services. By contrast, the 2014 review was undertaken against the backdrop of the Government having exited successfully the troika programme and, at around mid­point of the review process, a rapidly improving economic and fiscal environment. This meant that by the end of the review - for the first time since the onset of the current economic crisis - the Government could make decisions on budget allocations without recourse, as members saw in the last budget presentation, to further reductions. Consequently, the focus shifted from an emergency response to recovery planning, with the key challenge to build on the achievements of the previous few years and to put in place a spending plan that would secure full economic and social recovery.

To that end, this comprehensive report, which looks ahead over the next three years, is clear on a number of points. The efficiency and productivity improvements made by Government Departments since 2011 must be secured and expanded into other areas. Public expenditure policy and management must continue to focus on how best to use limited public resources. The space to provide additional spending of €429 million this year, the first increase in public expenditure since the onslaught of the crisis, has been made possible by the very careful management of the public finances of recent years and, therefore, continuing on this path is key to providing more room for increased spending in the years ahead.

What is most important to my mind about the comprehensive review process and the broader budget management reforms is that the Government now has in place a much more robust and evidence-based framework to help it to make budget and resource allocation decisions. This facility is also available to the committee. This does not necessarily make the decision-making process less difficult, particularly when very hard choices are to be made, but it does provide a more solid basis for making those decisions. As important is the resulting publication of a report which sets out more clearly than ever the Government's three-year spending plan and commitments laid out for Parliament and the public to examine and scrutinise.

Having given the committee an outline of the overarching reform context and the strategic objectives of the comprehensive review process, it might be useful for me to briefly describe the nuts and bolts of the process. The Government agreed the 2014 comprehensive review of expenditure should provide it with a precise set of decision options which would help realign spending priorities with the priorities set in the programme for Government, meet the overall agreed fiscal objectives, and help explore new and innovative ways of delivering Government policy in a reformed public sector.

Co-ordinated by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the review involved all Government Departments, which were asked to examine existing expenditure in all of their main spending programmes, set out priority areas and future pressures, and identify opportunities for reform and efficiencies. The Government was presented with an overarching assessment of these evaluations early last summer. This formed the basis of the budget discussions which followed, and informed the final decisions made by the Government on the allocations of expenditure for 2015 to 2017, which were presented to the Oireachtas at budget time.

This approach sought to ensure the resource allocation decisions attained the right balance of expenditure and that public resources were used effectively and efficiently to deliver public services in effective ways. The public and other interested parties were invited to submit comments and suggestions on public expenditure and reform in the context of the review. It is interesting that more than 60 submissions were received from a mixture of individuals and organisations. These all fed into the process and were considered by relevant Government Departments as part of the analysis. A selection of the proposals received are available on the Department's website.

Economic conditions are improving. There are reasons for optimism following the recent crisis we have endured, but in Ireland, as in other countries, there is a need to ensure the resources provided by taxpayers are managed carefully and it will always be thus. In our post-economic crisis environment, spending reviews should not be regarded simply as a tool for reducing expenditure. Instead they should be seen as a feature of the budget preparation process and a core instrument for ensuring good expenditure prioritisation and proper decision-making. Spending reviews give the Government the opportunity to examine how public resources are used, to set out how public resources should be used, and to examine where new spending proposals can be accommodated in existing budgets. I strongly advocate they should be here to stay because they are critical for informed and balanced fiscal management. They are also a growing feature of how all progressive governments deal with budget planning. I look forward to hearing the views of the committee and answering any questions that might arise.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. The first members to ask questions will be Deputies Sean Fleming, Barry, McDonald and a member of the Labour Party.

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

I object to this sequence. The committee has two types of meeting, one of which is when a Minister comes before it. At these meetings members of the Opposition should be allowed to put their questions first, rather than every second speaker being a member of the Government. At the other type of meeting, the witnesses before the committee are not Ministers and it is right to rotate speaking slots between the Government and the Opposition. Given that a member of the Government will be answering questions today, the Opposition should have an opportunity to put all of its questions first. Does the Vice Chairman understand my point?

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do.

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

It is the normal pattern when a Minister comes before the committee. I fully agree that at other meetings speakers should rotate between the Government and the Opposition, but not when a Minister is present. It may not have a practical impact, and this is not a tactic to delay for a few minutes, but when a Minister comes before the committee Opposition members should put their questions first.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Sean Fleming and I appreciate it. The clerk has confirmed that he is right. The order will be Deputies Sean Fleming and McDonald, after which a speaker from the Government parties will be called.

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

That is fine.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have plenty of time for everybody.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that, as usual, spokespersons will be called first and will have ten minutes, followed by other committee members, who will have five minutes, after which anybody else who wishes to ask questions may do so and they will also have five minutes. The clerk and I will keep an eye on the clock and I will advise speakers when there is a minute to go to allow them to wrap up. As always, if members have further questions they can come back in and there will be as much opportunity as one would like to put questions.

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

I thank the Minister for being present to discuss the comprehensive expenditure report. We should receive the Minister's opening remarks in advance so we have an opportunity to consider them prior to the meeting.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had this discussion previously. My officials asked the clerk whether there were any particular issues committee members would like me to address and nothing came back to me.

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

I am speaking about the opening statement.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The opening statement was going to deal with what committee members wanted. It was only drafted this morning on the basis we got nothing back.

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

We will move on. We are dealing with what the Minister terms the comprehensive expenditure report for 2015 to 2017, which covers approximately €150 billion expenditure over the three-year period. If I ask questions to which we do not get answers, or for which we do not have time to have answered today, I am happy to come back next week or whenever the information comes. I may ask a question on details which the Minister does not have today.

I do not accept the credibility of the document or of the Minister's opening statement. Some of what it is in the Minister's opening statement is not accurate or true. It is a flawed document, in line with the flawed document published by the Minister on budget day, which was 14 October. On that day the Minister stated gross current expenditure for 2015 would be just over €50 billion and this figure represented an increase of €429 million over the 2014 figure. The Minister repeated this verbatim today. He also stated this increase in targeted expenditure allows for expenditure in critical areas, such as social protection, health, justice and housing. The figure we had in October had not taken into account the €1.2 billion in Supplementary Estimates. When the Minister takes into account that the 2014 expenditure figures to which he referred on budget day were supplemented by €1.2 billion, it is clear the Revised Estimates for 2015, which are fundamental for this document, show a reduction in Government expenditure in 2015 compared to 2014 of approximately €800 million.

The Minister stated that this would allow for an increase of €429 million in 2015. That is simply not true. It ignores the additional €1.2 billion that was approved for 2014 by the Dáil during Christmas week. Combined with that figure, the 2015 figure is €800 million less than the 2014 outturn. To come to this meeting four months after originally making the flawed statement in the Chamber just to repeat it questions the credibility of the information before me. I understand that the process is a factor, but we must examine the figures.

I question the figures before us because on page 33 of the comprehensive review document, one of its most important tables, No. 3, outlines the ministerial Vote group gross current expenditure ceilings, which are the maximum amounts spendable allowable by law. They are not the Estimates, which might not reach the ceilings. The Estimate for 2015 is €49.612 million, leaving €465 million in the ceiling. If we happen to have anything remotely like the 2014 Supplementary Estimates in 2015, we will exceed those ceilings. What is the point of them? Expenditure will not be lower than them this year. There is less than €500 million in headroom, there was €1.2 billion in Supplementary Estimates in 2014 and there was €1.1 billion in Supplementary Estimates in 2012. If even half of those amounts are required this year, the Government will be in breach of its ceilings.

I would also test the credibility of this document by asking the Minister about the outturn of the previous comprehensive expenditure review. The figures for 2012, 2013 and 2014 were €51.8 billion, €50.6 billion and €48.7 billion, respectively. I do not expect the Minister to have the information with him. He is concentrating on something. What were the outturns in those years and were those ceilings changed? I believe they were.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Deputy put the question again, please?

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

The expenditure ceilings in the previous comprehensive expenditure report-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For 2011.

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

Yes. It was headed "2012-2014".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is referring to the 2011 report.

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

For the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. What were the outturns in those years?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are published annually. I do not have them with me. They are on the Department's website. We will check it this minute.

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

I am on the committee and am asking that the Department-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2015-2017, not 2011 to 2016. If the Deputy wants a meeting on the latter, we can return.

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

I thank the Minister for interrupting me. I believed I had a few minutes. I did not interrupt him. I will repeat my comments. This document is flawed and the Minister should be ashamed of it. I gave proof via the figures the Minister cited on budget day, which claimed extra expenditure for 2015 that ignored the Supplementary Estimates. Expenditure in 2015 will be less than it was in 2014 when last year's Supplementary Estimates are taken into account. I gave this as an example of how I considered this a flawed document and I was allowing the Minister an opportunity to give it some credibility by showing whether the previous expenditure report withstood the test of time. He is refusing that opportunity, so I can only conclude that he does not want to give us the information. I am sure that it did not stand up to time any more than this one will. However, we will not discuss that report today. When we have the figures, we will revert to it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are all public.

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

When the Minister attended the committee to discuss the Supplementary Estimates, I asked him questions. Three times he told me that he would give me the information the following day. I knew that it would take longer, as did the officials who were beside the Minister, but he stated it three times on the record. We did not get the information before the Supplementary Estimates were voted through the Dáil. His office sent the committee a letter on the issue last week because we wrote to complain. He was surprised that we were seeking detailed information that was not considered germane to our deliberations. Every item of Government expenditure is germane to this committee's deliberations and I will not accept the Minister's or his Department's claim that we cannot ask detailed questions on same because they are "not germane".

Within 30 minutes of having seen the document on budget day, I pointed out another reason for not believing in these figures. According to the document, the expenditure ceiling for the Department of Health will be €13.079 billion in 2015 and €13.292 billion in 2017, an increase of €200 million or approximately 1.3%. No one believes that the Government will be able to limit the increase in that Department's expenditure to less than 0.5% in each of the next three years.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has approximately three minutes left, so I was wondering whether he might-----

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

No, I am putting my questions. The Minister will respond or we can get a response in writing, whichever he chooses. The Minister knows that the population will increase and age and asserts that we should be considering long-term issues. No one believes that the Department will be able to provide a service with an increase in expenditure of just 0.5% in each of the next three years, yet that is what this document claims. I reject any document that has such an assumption built into it because it is not accurate.

In the Minister's Budget Statement, which was based on this comprehensive review, a document that he distributed that day, he referred to €2.2 billion for social housing. I told him that I did not accept the plan's credibility, as much of it was based on what NAMA would do despite NAMA never having delivered on its promises on social housing. The plan is no more genuine just because the Minister referred to it on budget day.

We examine comprehensive Government expenditure. This document excludes interest paid on the national debt, which is the single largest item of Government expenditure at approximately €8 billion. It excludes payments of in the order of €1.5 billion that Ireland makes to the EU each year. It excludes payments for the running of the Oireachtas and the Judiciary. The Minister knows that they are included in the Central Fund, but they are Government expenditure. It excludes expenditure on public private partnerships and as well as agencies' off-balance sheet items. The Minister cannot call this document a "comprehensive expenditure report" if it excludes €10 billion of Government expenditure that the Dáil is not allowed to debate. We are used to that, though. Judging by what happened this morning, the Government does not like Dáil debates.

This report is anything but comprehensive. It is a piecemeal document and ignores all previous missed targets, for example, last December's Supplementary Estimates, because it was published in October. This fairy tale report is full of the Minister's wishful thinking and is a further example of one of his flawed documents. He has not issued a document that has stood the test of 12 months. This one was out of date within two months because of the Supplementary Estimates. He should have come to the committee with a corrected version because this is more a work of fiction than of fact.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, the entire time-----

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

The Minister can respond to the committee in due course.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given the number of members present, we will have plenty of time to revert to the Deputy.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we not debate it now rather than lose the point, by agreement of the committee?

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Deputy McDonald wishes to proceed, that is her entitlement, but if she wants to wait, that would be fine.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can await a summary response.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With more debate, we-----

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move to the Minister's response.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I always come to this committee to engage in as open a way as a I can, more in hope than in expectation that Parliament might act like Parliament and engage on these issues in a serious and mature way as opposed to the completely partisan way that we just heard. Hope springs eternal and I do my best always to ask Members of the Oireachtas to step up to the plate of being real providers of proper analysis as opposed to people who make partisan points entirely.

I do not know where to begin. The Deputy described the document as not true and lacking credibility. It is what it is, a comprehensive analysis of every Government Department presented in a way that has never happened previously in this country. We never previously had the type of budgetary analysis that is now provided. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it is a work in progress. However, I would like it to be a work in progress with which somebody might positively engage, as opposed to being dismissed by the person for partisan reasons, with no interest in improving the product but just in scoring silly points in my judgment.

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

Chairman, is the Minister entitled to call people silly?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not call the Deputy silly.

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

The Minister has used the word "silly" every time he has spoken to me in public.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said the Deputy is making silly points.

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

You made them. I am not silly.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You declared-----

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

You are getting personal, Minister, calling me silly. You did it in the Chamber on the last occasion during Question Time as well.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speak through the Chair, Deputies. I remind both parties of the need for civility.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to be completely civil, despite the fact that basically I was called a liar and that the document, which is the result of a year's work by officials across all Departments, is called a work of fiction. That is not a basis to begin analysis.

In the immediate aftermath of the budget Deputy Sean Fleming issued a statement along the lines of the presentation he made about the Supplementary Estimates. The budget was in October and the Supplementary Estimates were determined in December. Of course, there will be some changes. As the economic situation improved, because of the work of the Government and the hard work of the Irish people during the course of 2014, I had more scope to address outstanding issues in December 2014 than I expected to have in October 2014 when the previous budget was published. That is understandable to everybody present. In October 2013, when we published the expected expenditure profiles of 2014, I was expecting to face into 2015 with demands for further budgetary reductions of €1.3 billion. Instead of that, we had no reductions and an increase in expenditure. That was because of the really good progress the economy has made. Of course, the projections improved and we were able to provide some amelioration of pressure points when the income stream into the State and the unemployment rate improved so remarkably.

I will outline the specific details in response and rebuttal to the points made by Deputy Sean Fleming, which are just wrong. In respect of the €1.2 billion Supplementary Estimates he mentioned - they amounted to €1.27 billion - many of those, as I explained in detail, were technical adjustments. I will go through them according to each Department. In the Department of the Taoiseach, there was a Supplementary Estimate of €2 million but savings of €3 million. In the Department of Finance, there was no Supplementary Estimate but savings of €23 million. In the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, there was a Supplementary Estimate of €22 million, which we discussed in this committee, but savings of €17 million. However, we had to vote on the gross figure.

In the Department of Justice and Equality, there was a Supplementary Estimate of €84 million, with a net increase of €54 million. Although the gross figure voted for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government was €35 million, the net figure of required additional spending was €19 million. In the Department of Education and Skills, the additional Vote was €103 million, although the net amount was €95 million. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade made a saving of €19 million. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources made a saving of €3 million.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine had a notional Supplementary Estimate of €177 million but, as I explained, that was a profile difference because we did not get EU payments which we will receive in 2015. We had to account for them. We expected them last year but they will be received in this year's Estimates. The Supplementary Estimate of €162 million for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport was money we allocated, and I explained that. It was for buying the new buses that were required and for other transport needs. We had the wherewithal to do it and spent it last year to meet a demand that presented. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation made savings of €19 million and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht saved €1 million. The Department of Defence had a notional additionality of €5 million but it made an actual saving of €8 million. The Department of Social Protection saved €62 million.

The vast bulk of the additionality was in the Department of Health, because we wished to provide it with relief from pressure. That amounted to €647 million. There was a balance in contingencies of €151 million savings as well. In essence, of the €1.27 billion in Supplementary Estimates the additionality was €841 million, of which the Department of Health took €647 million or 77%. I explained that at the time. I was criticised as being profligate in allocating €1.27 billion. In fact, we allocated €841 million and 77% of that went to health to address concerns about which Deputy Fleming's party was banging drums each week. It was right to do so because there were pressures that had to be addressed. We had to do that. However, that does not mean that we did not budget properly. It is just that the improved circumstances allowed us to allocate resources at the end of last year that we did not envisage we would have in the budget of 2013. I hope I have explained that to the Deputy.

With regard to the ceilings, the figures are profiled on the ceilings we have outlined and we can deal with the last CRE separately, as I do not have it before me now.

In terms of the other point Deputy Sean Fleming made regarding voted expenditure and expenditure that comes from the Central Fund, that has always been the practice since the foundation of the State. If there is a wish to change that, we can have that debate. The Central Fund, as Deputy Sean Fleming knows, is a matter for the Minister for Finance. I do not control it. It pays our salaries, the national debt, the Judiciary and other functions, all of which are prescribed by law as passed by the Oireachtas. It is not simply that we would determine that we will allocate something to the Central Fund and it would be voted expenditure. Some of it, such as loan repayments, is required by the contracts we have with those who lend us money. They have unconditional access to the repayment scheme, so it would not be conditional on an annual vote of the House. If people are to loan us money, they must know that the money will be available and provided. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Again, if we are reforming budgetary matters and if there should be a debate about how the Central Fund operates, let us have that debate. However, it is the Department of Finance, not my Department, that controls the Central Fund.

On the final point, Deputy Sean Fleming said the issues that arose in the Dáil this morning would indicate the Government does not wish to have debate. I assure him the Government was, and still is, most anxious to have that debate, but when the Chair makes a ruling it is as binding on the Government as it is on the Opposition.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McDonald has ten minutes. There will be a certain level of flexibility, as we have shown so far.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To refer to the Minister's last point, whether to debate the issue or not is for a different forum.

To make a general point, the process of reforming the budgetary analysis, projections and so forth is very welcome. It is the way to do business. At the risk of shocking the Minister, I believe this is the right approach. However, ultimately its value is only reflected in its accuracy and the extent to which it is grounded in not just the real figures, but also the real demands on the system. I will refer to some concerns I have in that regard shortly.

Referring to broader budgetary reform, the Minister mentioned a performance budgeting initiative. He said it is an ongoing reform process aimed at aligning spending, that is, inputs, with achievements, that is, outputs.

Where is that being piloted, if it is being piloted, or where was this particular analytical approach applied? If the Minister could answer me, I think it is better if we talk to each other.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Performance budgeting is something we introduced over the last two years, beginning with some Departments, and it now applies across all Departments. When a Department presents the expenditure subhead, it also indicates what the subhead is for and the expected outcomes. At the end of the year the relevant committee, be it the health committee or the education committee, analyses it. It is not simply an accounting mechanism to say the money was spent on the budget. It is to show whether the Department got what it intended and to get an analysis of what it intended.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This approach is obviously at the heart of producing ceilings and the analysis we have in front of us. Let us talk about health, at page 77, if we could. Deputy Sean Fleming and the Minister, Deputy Howlin, have already had the conversation about the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister himself has set out the €647 million over and above what had been envisaged was required. This was just to keep the system at par, not to do anything spectacular and even with that, we still faced into a deep crisis within our accident and emergency facilities across the State. One could add to that any number of other shortfalls and dilemmas within the system. Is the Minister saying that, on the basis of performance budgeting and the other analytical tools that have been applied, he is convinced the figures set out here for 2015, 2016 and 2017 are not just ceilings to be adhered to, but represent a sufficient resource to deliver a sufficient service to the citizens of this State?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fundamentally a question that should be posed to the Minister for Health, who is statutorily and constitutionally responsible for managing health expenditure. Obviously, the Government as a whole listens to every line Department so that we can make rational decisions about a finite cake and how to divide it up.

In truth, we have gone through a very significant decrease in public expenditure over the last years. As a Government, we sought to the best of our ability to protect core social programmes, including health, but also social protection and education. The proportion of the total volume of money we spend on those three areas has increased as a portion of the overall spend. In the 2015 budget, for example, those three Departments are now, from memory, at 87% of all public expenditure.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to be rude to the Minister but I am conscious that we are very constrained in time. With all due respect, I asked a specific question around the health----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is enough.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I appreciate that the Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, carries the can for health in the first instance, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is presenting this document to us. I am accepting the figures from him and his officials in good faith. The document is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is based on the premise that these are the ceilings as calculated, and that they are sufficient in the quantum of moneys apportioned. If they are not, this is just an exercise we are going through that does not really amount to much.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not agree with the Deputy on that basis. Are they sufficient to meet requirements? The question that begs is, could we spend more? The answer, of course, is "Yes". I have had this discussion with the OECD. I went to talk to the OECD about health expenditure, because it is a pressure point in every developed country. There is some sort of health expenditure focus in every developed economy. I have talked to my ministerial colleagues about this as well.

One of the things I asked the OECD health experts, who have done the analysis across every OECD country, was whether there is any model I could look at in terms of ideal health expenditure analysis. The answer was "No". There is no ideal - they all have different systems.

To answer the question as best I can, the Minister for Health presented a budget that he says will maintain the services at last year's level, meet the increased pressures and make improvements in the designated areas for which he bid for money. Would he like to spend and do more? Every single line Minister I deal with would like to spend more and do more, and I wish I had more resources to allocate to everybody.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Minister remind us what the spend in health was last year? What was the ceiling for 2014?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The health sector current expenditure - the gross Revised Estimate for 2014 was €12.4 billion. The net was €12.05 billion.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the overall annual spend?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the Revised Estimate book that we published for 2014.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister talked about decreases in public expenditure. They are known in common parlance as cuts and, despite what he might say, they have happened in health, welfare and education. It is the Government's position, which the Minister echoed in his script earlier, that there are additional resources and moneys to be invested. It is fair enough if the Minister regards Deputy Sean Fleming and myself and others on the Opposition benches as his adversaries in this regard. However, for this document to enjoy public confidence, there has to be some sense in which the figures tally with the reality of the service requirements. Staying on the issue of health, I think the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has said that what he has is not sufficient. That is the sense of what he said.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He actually said publicly that it is sufficient.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He said he can kind of tip along, but that is it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think what the Deputy is asking in bottom-line terms is whether we should allocate more money to health. Is that what she is asking?

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am asking whether, when the Minister presents a document such as this - clearly a great deal of work and thought has gone into it - he should produce figures in the abstract, or whether he should produce figures that take account of the fact that, for instance, there is a crisis in accident and emergency departments across the State.

I also noted that, on the welfare resource allocation, we are looking at a decrease of, I think, €137 million from 2015 through to 2017. Presumably the Minister will tell me this is because he envisages more people coming off the live register, or it could be a factor of continuing emigration. Nevertheless, that figure begs the question around different cuts that have happened in the system and whether, in this new era when the Minister tells us he has more to play with and that we are seeing the green shoots of recovery, we are actually going to see any repair to those cuts that people have endured. In welfare, I would specifically instance what constitutes a relatively small expenditure but is an important payment nonetheless - respite care, which got absolutely decimated. I could equally talk about the disability sector, which has endured very substantial cuts.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A lot of the work we could get into here is proper to the line Department. When the committee on health looks at it, it will look at the tables in health and will go through each line with the Minister for Health and his team. I think the committee members will ask those questions about whether it will be enough in terms of the drugs refund scheme, acute hospitals, or any of the programmes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister know the problem with that?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Deputy let me finish the point? All I can say is that I hear a presentation from the Minister for Health, as I do from every Department, and engage in bilateral discussions. Ultimately, the document the Deputy sees is signed off by officials from the Department of Health as accurate, proper and appropriate. It is approved by the Cabinet collectively. Therefore, the Minister for Health and every other line Minister says "Yes" to it.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me outline the problem with that. I refer again to the problem in the accident and emergency Departments. The Department of Health and the HSE required a specific amount of resources to sort the problem.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The HSE, yes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It got a quarter of it what is requested.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was not true.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was that not true?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not rebut these remarks publicly because I would be rebutting all the time. I got a letter asking for €25 million for the programme, and €25 million was allocated.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister saying the €100 million was never requested?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The sum requested in the letter I got from the Department of Health to deal with the issue of discharges was €25 million. If the sum were €100 million and €25 million were allocated, does the Deputy believe there would be a crisis in the first month? If the HSE were asking for €100 million for a year and €25 million were allocated, does the Deputy not believe it would get over the first month, at least, with a quarter of the allocation?

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why? Was the €25 million given in a lump sum?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Twenty-five million euro is in the budget allocation for it to allocate as it pleases.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So there was never a request for €100 million?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a request for €25 million. I am sure there is ongoing dialogue to secure €1 billion for everything. Everybody asks for significant sums of money for everything but, in terms of the formal letter-----

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I am not mistaken senior staff from the HSE asserted in the public domain that they had asked for in the region of €100 million.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked to see what was asked for when I saw the story in the public domain. I was shown a letter in which €25 million was the sum requested.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure I am running out of time. I have one other issue to raise.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish my point on this because it is important. Both Deputies talked about health expenditure. It is funny that every public discussion I have on expenditure normally crystallises in the area of health. That is completely usual in every developed country. The issue will become more acute because we will have to make decisions on health care, particularly because there will be an increasing number of very expensive drugs becoming available. This was evident recently in respect of hepatitis drugs. Decisions will have to be made on their provision and the impact on the capacity of the State to pay for them. We have an ageing population and will have to take decisions on providing for an ageing population in a way that we have not in the past.

As the Deputy knows, the EU Commission and IMF are constantly reviewing expenditure in Ireland and commenting on it. In June 2014, the EU Commission made health recommendations for Ireland's national reform programme. Its document states:

Even though Ireland has a relatively young population, public healthcare expenditure was among the highest in the EU in 2012 at 8.7% of GNI, significantly above the EU average of 7.3%. Given the current difficulties in managing the health budget, expected demographic pressures due to an ageing population mean that current service levels can be maintained only if value-for-money gains are achieved over the medium to long term.”

This is where I come in as I must ensure that whatever we allocate — we are allocating as much as we can afford — is at least expended in an efficient way. That is really the process in which I want every Member of the Oireachtas to engage.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My next question is on the EU budgetary rules, specifically the expenditure benchmark. I raised this with the Minister during Question Time recently. I have both a question and concern to raise. My concern is that a further restriction is being placed on the room for manoeuvre of the State and any Government in respect of its expenditure decisions. My question arises because there seems to be a controversy over, or difference of opinion as to whether, the expenditure benchmark is binding or provided by way of strong but non-binding guidance. I have read strong opinions on both sides of that argument. The Minister indicated when we spoke last that he regarded the arrangement as binding. I would like the Minister to clarify this again.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This will increasingly become a point of discussion because it really is one on which we need to come to a conclusion. However, we will not be able to come to a conclusion on it domestically. I refer to the question of what is now being called the fiscal space, namely, the space within the fiscal rules in which we can either increase expenditure or reduce taxation. The first point I should make is that the rules are very complicated. In a way, they have to be teased out. I discussed this matter bilaterally with the German finance Minister, Mr. Wolfgang Schäuble, when I met him in Dublin. I discussed it in the past ten days with the Slovenian Minister, who has similar issues. I discussed it also with the new EU Vice President and economics Commissioner. A number of countries are already alerting the Commission to concerns over the availability of sufficient fiscal space for countries whose economic circumstances allow increased expenditure to engage in such expenditure. They are coming at it from different angles. Some countries in the east, for example, are concerned about the perceived growing threat from Russia and what is happening in Ukraine. They want to increase military expenditure. Other countries, such as Ireland and Italy, are very anxious to increase expenditure on necessary infrastructure. Whether that should be captured in any calculation of allowable expenditure for fiscal ceiling purposes is open to debate. There are technical issues on which we are engaging. These concern the profiling of Ireland in terms of population trends, for example. In reality, these might not be what were perceived to be the reality when people were leaving the country at the height of the depression. We need to work out a technical agreement with the Commission that will give us sufficient capacity to allow our economy to continue to grow, meet critical infrastructural deficiencies, which the Deputies could name, and continue to ensure that social expenditure meets the social needs of our people.

All these matters will be subject to an increasing amount of debate in the future. Deputy McDonald has put her finger on an important issue.

Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses and Minister are all very welcome today. It was a very interesting contribution. It is important and very necessary to have a medium to long-term perspective. Perhaps we lacked it in the past. There certainly did not seem to be a co-ordinated approach to achieving economic stability, which is vital, in the longer term.

Reference was made to climate change, demographics and infrastructural projects. Bearing in mind that the prices of oil and other fuels are dropping and the medium-term objectives associated with projects such as district heating and housing, which involve major infrastructure, we now have a chance to do things properly.

In 2011, I believe, I read a publication, a review document, that highlighted the lack of expertise in Departments. It highlighted that many policies were sent out for evaluation and that, owing to that outsourcing, there was a real risk of policy capture. This was quite worrying.

Does the Minister think he has rectified that situation now? It was clearly not an approach with which one could continue. It is welcome that the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service has 70 new economists and evaluators. How many more does the Minister think will be needed to reach the full complement to do this work?

The Minister also mentioned performance budgeting, which was great to hear. Would he consider sectors such as the agri-sector in which there were necessary cuts, as in all other Departments, and which are now returning strongly to economic growth to be a priority for additional funding down the line? I welcome co-funding for projects to date. The cuts in current and capital funding were I think 8% and 16%.

The Minister mentioned Civil Service renewal. We have been through a long process as part of which people gave out about the Civil Service. It has been constant background noise, but it is important that we start talking about Civil Service renewal. Yes, robustness and accountability are important, but civil servants must have the skills required to deliver and must feel their contribution is of value, which I am not sure was the case previously.

I presume the projections the Minister has made will be more accurate as time passes. I run an SME and have done so for many years. When we started a cashflow analysis, we found it incredibly difficult and got it wrong because we did not have the necessary skills. When we started to do it year-on-year, our margin of error decreased. Having the yearly spend and medium-term investment is critical. I would be interested to hear what the Minister sees as an acceptable rate of error, 2%, 3%, or 5%? One needs flexibility.

The issue of health spending has been brought up which I sometimes think is a very blunt instrument with which to attack the Government. The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics evaluates clinically whether drugs work. It is not widely known that many drugs do not work. They work on 30% or 50% of the population, but as a country we are expected to pay for 100%. Some companies want us to pay for everything, yet they will not accept that we should not pay for those drugs that do not work. If they only work on 50% of the population, we should not have to pay full dollar. There should be some accommodation in that regard. Ireland was known as Treasure Island. Thankfully, that is changing, but if we succumb to every request made, that is what we will still become. I witnessed a conversation one night a number of years ago when a certain drugs company was trying to put on pressure to have its drug approved. It even suggested it might consider pulling some jobs out of the country. That behaviour is unacceptable, but that is the pressure Ministers and others are under. At times we use health spending as a very easy stick with which to beat the Government.

I welcome the extra spend of €429 million. IrelandStat is important and we have often been criticised for not communicating properly. It is important that people can see in a straightforward fashion how the extra moneys are being spent and how they will, I hope, have a positive effect.

It is welcome that the spending reviews are, as the Minister says, not simply a tool for reductions in expenditure because that would be the wrong mindset to have. We need to be prudent, but if we can see that a performance can be achieved in a certain area, we should be prepared to achieve it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has covered a broad canvas. I will pick up one or two of the points he made, starting with his last point.

I had what was perhaps a naive notion when I entered this position in 2011, when we started the comprehensive review of expenditure process, that we would have much more proactive engagement with the Oireachtas on budgetary analysis. I naively thought that we would not have a big budget day announcement. I thought we would have an open discussion over a protracted period when we published the first comprehensive review of expenditure, with all of the financial options, plus the ceilings agreed over a three-year horizon with the Commission and the troika, and that we would have a debate within the Houses on where expenditure reductions should be made if they had to be made. That did not happen, for understandable reasons. The Opposition parties were not going to offer themselves as partners in reducing expenditure. If one takes the seal of office, one must make the decisions. That is understandable, but I hope we can migrate from this position as we move into a period in which we will make rational decisions on small additions.

We are never going to have boom times again. For 15 or 20 years hence, we will be dealing with a deficit that we will have to get back into kilter. At the end of this year we will be out of the excessive deficit procedure, but we will be within what it is called the "protective arm", a lovely phrase. We will still have to reduce the deficit by 0.5% or more, as long as we have a deficit greater than 60% of GDP. No matter who is in office in the future, there will be difficult decisions to be made and one will always be balancing choices. For the Opposition, traditionally - we decry the way Parliament works - it has always been, "Whatever you are proposing is wrong and whatever lobby group wants more to be spent is right." That does not provide the public with the proper basis to say whether the policies proposed are right. We decided to spend much more money on social housing, a subject very close to the Chairman's heart, at the end of last year. That means that somewhere else will lose out. Could we have a robust debate on whether that is the right priority? If one has a finite source of money, one will be making decisions on that basis.

We need to look beyond what is immediate. We have been trapped because we have been working in a crisis. In a very narrow timeframe we had to get the deficit below 3% of GDP by 2015 and, by God, that was hard work. It was difficult and challenging political work and it was challenging for the people to endure it and work with us.

There are big issues with a broader horizon and I have mentioned two that I think are important. The OPW, at the Government's request, is profiling the impact of climate change in terms of flooding. Working in a realistic way on a flood abatement plan will be a ten or 15-year project and will not be cheap, but we will have to start thinking about and providing for it. Thankfully, we have a very young demographic profile that will continue to put demands on education and so on, but there is also an ageing profile. We see the question of how we should deal with this as a welcome challenge, not as a burden. It means putting money in the basket not in the short term to gain political capital in the next general election but to safeguard the country from flooding in ten years time. These are much more difficult political choices to make, but that is what the idea of comprehensive planning and strategic thinking is about.

I have two other comments because I do not want to be too long-winded. I mentioned the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service.

Two of its newest members are in the Gallery. One of them is newly recruited and is here to observe, while the other is a civil servant from the French Department of the Interior, who is on secondment for one year to study how we manage budgeting. We have considerable interaction with other governments because comprehensive reviews of expenditure have become a keen issue. Some countries, such as Canada, have been carrying out such reviews since the 1990s but they do not all do it in the same way or to the same depth as Ireland. Increasingly this will be a feature in a strategic way of thinking rather ad hocbudgeting which has sometimes characterised the way we approached the matter.

We might need a long discussion in a future meeting on the Civil Service renewal programme because it is a very important development in itself.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take note of that.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to the renewal process and the Civil Service accountability process.

Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister think there are sufficient skills within the Department to address the criticisms previously made against it?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He certainly has the fortitude.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Establishing the economic evaluation service was important. We investigated particular deficiencies in terms of our skill set. By and large - this is a compliment not a criticism - most public servants are generalists but skill sets are becoming more specific and I think we will see an increasing number being recruited on short-term contracts to carry out specific tasks. For example, we have established a new Office of Government Procurement because the way in which we procured €9 billion worth of goods and services across the public service was previously haphazard, without professional procurement inputs. We have centralised human resources management and recruited a number of key professional human resources managers to carry out defined jobs. We established the economic and evaluation service, with 70 economists already recruited to work across most Departments. They are currently receiving training in my Department. That will continue to expand. I do not know what the optimal number will be. I was trained as a trade unionist, and from that perspective the normal answer is "more". However, we do need more than we currently have.

I hope this will improve the capacity not only of the Government but also the Parliament to carry out the sort of evaluation it requires. It will enhance the role of Parliament if people in scarce budgeting circumstances can identify the options available. We can have rows about the options because people will hold different opinions. Similarly in Cabinet, Ministers have different views about their priorities and they seek to reach consensus as best they can.

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

Several years ago a number of Departments prepared value for money reports on various projects. Have they gone out of fashion or are many still being carried out? Perhaps the Minister can send us a note on them. I get the impression that with the reduction in staff numbers they may not be produced to the same extent. If a project receives €20 million over three years, it is worth knowing whether it provided value for money.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Page 124 of the review sets out the indicative topics for value for money and focused policy assessment reviews planned for the years from 2015 to 2017. I note that the President's travel is one of the topics. If anybody has suggestions for indicative topics for evaluation, I would be happy to consider them.

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

One of the other topics under the President's establishment is the centenarians' bounty. I hope the Government is not planning to take anything from that cohort.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously it is not enough.

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

Exactly. The reviews are honing in on the President.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not detain the Minister much longer, other than to make one or two minor observations. The Minister noted that the 2011 comprehensive review of expenditure was undertaken at the height of the storm. This current review is being undertaken against a very different backdrop. This shows the limits of this type of planning process in that a planning process is only as good as the external economic circumstances at any moment in time. I am asking this question as the devil's advocate. To what extent are processes like this undemocratic given that they cover periods in which a particular Government may not be in office?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very presumptuous.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said "may not be in office". To what extent could they be perceived by the public as being undemocratic in so far as they attempt to remove expenditure options for potential future governments?

I am a supporter of evidence-based research and policy analysis. However, in regard to the extent to which evidence-based policy analysis and research determines what amounts or proportions are allocated to individual Departments, I was surprised by the level of savings the Minister indicated certain Departments have made. If this type of analysis is as robust as it should be, how is it that some of these savings are being made? I can understand how savings can be made in, for example, the Department of Social Protection when people go back to work but I am not clear as to why money is not reallocated within the Department given that it has clear needs in other areas. It appears instead to have been sucked into the great black hole of the health system.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perish the thought.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I heard correctly, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government also made substantial savings. This is another Department with considerable needs. What process is in place to ensure the money allocated is actually spent? If it is not spent, the question arises of how efficient the process really is.

In regard to more recent developments, in 2008 capital expenditure was €9 billion but it is expected to be €3.5 billion in 20015. That is clearly a significant decrease in expenditure over a relatively short period. Given that the economy is now growing, there will be wear and tear on infrastructure and capital depreciation. Could the lack of investment in infrastructure affect the country's capacity to recover? Is there potential for Ireland to access the European Investment Fund? I am somewhat worried by the comments from the Department of Finance which suggested that because Ireland has been reasonably successful in terms of our economic recovery, we might not qualify for that type of funding.

The more recent announcements by the European Central Bank may assist in a further iteration of the document before us in terms of allowing the Government to increase certain limits on expenditure. By making the cost of money to government very cheap, is there potential for us to increase the expenditure ceilings under the various headings?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, it is a broad tapestry of issues. There is an expectation that we will engage in strategic planning beyond the horizon of our mandate. By definition, the planning of major infrastructural projects, whether it be the national children's hospital or the N17 road project, will require years of work. There has to be an understanding that some projects will continue over time. Of course, one cannot tie the hands of an incoming Government, as new priorities will be set, but neither can we look into a crystal ball and be sure there will not be another major jolt in the world that will turn everything on its head. It is prudent, therefore, to have a reasonable horizon and make determinations that are not outrageous or outlandish. As far as is practicable, the greater body politic should be included in that decision making process to have as much of a buy-in and continuity as possible.

I have asked somebody with more mental arithmetic ability to check the savings achieved. It always sounds like a significant sum, but it is in the order of 0.25%. Most businesses would like to be accurate to that level. As many are demand-led public services, it is a very reasonable outturn and we provide for a carryover of capital.

I was asked about flood damage caused last year and people wanted to be able to undertake repairs. As rectifying some of the flood damage caused in coastal areas required not only planning but also foreshore licences and all the rest, the funding required could not be expended in one year. We have allowed for it to be carried over.

I was asked if there was sufficient capital funding. We made hard decisions in 2011 and substantially reduced the capital programme, for which we received much criticism. It was either that or cut the current programme, which predominantly covered health, social welfare and education services. We are between a rock and a hard place and it can be very difficult to justify it when people literally do not have enough on which to survive in social welfare payments or need fundamental treatment in the health service. Can we say we will not provide it and that we will build better roads or have better broadband instead? It is a difficult choice to make.

In the next weeks we will be profiling for the coming five years slightly increased capital investment. Perversely, if a motorway system is broadened, for example, there will be bigger maintenance bills. As they age, roads also need to be maintained. I have been asked a very pertinent question to which I do not have an easy answer: what we will get from the Juncker scheme? I do not know the answer. I know that we have submitted robust plans and, as the European Union phrase constantly puts it, we stand ready to expend anything we can get. We will pay great attention to how this is rolled out over time. That applies to me and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, as well as other Ministers involved in interacting with the Commission.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for participating in the meeting. Deputy Sean Fleming asked for some supplementary information.

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

The clerk might check the transcripts and if there is any information outstanding, the Minister might revert to me.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the information for 2011 be circulated?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is available on the website, but we can send it to the Deputy.