Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been agreed that I will act as Chair. We hope the Chairman of the committee, Deputy John McGuinness, will arrive at a later stage. I remind Deputies to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. This is important as the interference associated with such devices can cause serious problems for broadcasting, editorial and sound staff. We are considering the Revised Estimates for 2017 of the Public Expenditure and Reform Vote group. I welcome the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform with special responsibility for financial services, e-Government and public procurement, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. On 15 December 2016, the Dáil ordered that the following Revised Estimates be referred to this committee for consideration: Vote 11 - Public Expenditure and Reform, Vote 12 - Superannuation and Retired Allowances, Vote 14 - State Laboratory, Vote 15 - Secret Service, Vote 17 - Public Appointments Service, Vote 18 - National Shared Services Office, Vote 19 - Office of the Ombudsman, and Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement. I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and their accompanying officials. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates and the supplementary performance information regarding the outputs and impacts of programme expenditure. The 2017 total allocation for the Public Expenditure and Reform group of eight Votes is approximately €509 million. I invite the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, to make his opening statement.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to attend today's meeting. I will speak briefly on my overall Vote before facilitating as many questions as possible. As the Chair has said, this Vote group comprises the Votes for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Office of Government Procurement and the National Shared Services Office; the Votes for the offices under the aegis of my Department, which are the State Laboratory, the Public Appointments Service and the Office of the Ombudsman; and the Votes for superannuation and retired allowances, which covers Civil Service pensions, and the Secret Service. The Vote for the remaining element of the Public Expenditure and Reform group - the Office of Public Works - is handled separately by this committee.

The structure of this Vote remains unchanged in 2017. There are two strategic programmes, one focusing on public expenditure and sectoral policy and the other focusing on public service management and reform. The requested staffing and funding resources for each programme are set out in the third part of the Estimate. With regard to the objective of the first of the two programmes, the select committee will be aware that the timetable envisaged by the Government for the 2018 Estimates process includes a spending review in advance of the budget. While moderate and sustainable expenditure growth is planned over the medium term, there are emerging and competing public service demands. It is intended that the spending review process will help to broaden the Government's options during the budgetary process by creating fiscal space to fund new policies from within existing ceilings through a systemic review of the existing cost base.

In parallel with this approach, my Department will continue to work on planning the capital review, which will be concluded later this year. The objective of the capital review is to provide a focused analysis of capital spending and to outline what can realistically be delivered over the remainder of the plan utilising the additional resources that are now available. The increase in gross expenditure on the Public Expenditure and Reform Vote for 2017 will bring the total gross allocation to €56 million. This additional allocation will provide for cross-Government measures and is driven by a number of factors such as the progress of the Government's commitments under the public service ICT strategy, the advancement of Civil Service learning and development, the facilitation of an electronic exchange of information between the State and the EU Commission, the implementation of the single public service pension scheme across the public service, the development of the Government's economic and evaluation service and the work of the Public Service Pay Commission.

I would like to reflect briefly on the future of public service reform so that we can continue to focus on improving services. Two successive plans have been delivered by my Department over the past five years. They have enabled us to maintain and improve services in the face of the necessary reduction in staff numbers and budgets. Between 2009 and 2014, the Exchequer pay bill was reduced by over a fifth and staff numbers were reduced by a third. These reforms were implemented at a time of increased demand for many essential public services, such as welfare payments, medical cards, school places and pensions. In December 2016, I was pleased to see many positive messages about how our public services are performing by comparison with such services in other countries. According to the Institute of Public Administration's public service trends report for 2016, our public administration is the most professional and least politicised in the 28 EU member states. Our public service is considered one of the least bureaucratic in Europe. We also scored highly for the quality of our public administration and in the rating of perceptions that Government decisions are effectively administered.

We are continually looking for ways to improve customer experiences. Last month, my Department published a survey of business customers of the Civil Service. The survey was carried out to meet a commitment in the public service reform plan. I am pleased that levels of satisfaction with the service received and the outcome of the business interaction have improved by over 15% since the last survey in 2009. It is not surprising to note that the way business engages with the Civil Service is changing fundamentally. Some 83% of businesses now interact via online services, compared to just 33% in 2009. This helps how we plan for the future.

Work is now under way on a survey of Irish public customers and will assess satisfaction with, and perceptions of, services provided to the public by the Civil Service. My Department is currently engaging across the public service on the preparation of the next phase of reform to cover the period from 2017 to 2020. The draft plan will then be informed by a period of public consultation in the spring, with a view to publication by mid-2017. In addition, I published a second progress report on Civil Service renewal in July. I again invite members to provide input into the Department's general plans on public service renewal.

I will now turn briefly to the issue of public service pay. I have outlined that the Government will take a two-phased approach. We have now completed phase one and the additional spending arising from the Government decision in respect of the anomaly payment for those staff within the Lansdowne Road agreement, aside from members of the Garda, is a one-off cost of €120 million in 2017. The required funds must be met from available public resources while taking into account the scope for reallocation of expenditure and continuing to meet the Government's commitment to core public services. The Government will monitor the position closely and will consider how best to meet any additional funding requirements where the need arises.

We are now beginning phase two, during which we hope to negotiate a successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement. Before we begin those negotiations, we await the report of the Public Service Pay Commission. The commission’s role is to provide evidence-based objective analysis and as I have argued this morning, I believe strongly that a collective approach to public service pay is vital to our national interest and never more so than at a time of international flux. Collective agreements deliver public service reform, secure productivity improvements and allow for planning. They allow us to balance pay increases in the public service with other priorities like education, housing and the issues debated in the House last night.

In addition to progress in public service reform, I continue to be committed to political reform and real progress has been made in this year. An area of current focus will be the general scheme for a data sharing and governance Bill and the Public Sector Standards Bill 2015, which I aim to bring to Committee Stage by April. In addition, my Department has undertaken the first review of the operation of the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 and of the system for State board appointments. I will publish both of these reports shortly.

Turning now to the other Votes, my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has responsibility in respect of the Office of Government Procurement, OGP. Members will aware that procurement reform is an important element of the Government’s overall approach to reform. In this regard, the net allocation for the OGP in 2017 is estimated at €19.96 million, compared with €19.982 million in 2016. In the four years to the end of 2016, the OGP and its partner sector sourcing organisations in health, education, local government and defence had enabled cost reduction savings of the order of €300 million. Total cost reduction savings for 2017 are between €80 million and €100 million and this represents a very significant portion of overall Government spending. By putting in place procurement arrangements, the aim is to achieve economies of scale and maximum value for money while balancing other requirements, including societal considerations and SME access.

Members also will be aware that the National Shared Services Office within my Department is leading the shared services strategy within the overall reform and renewal context. We are making good progress across all aspects of this reform agenda. The Civil Service HR and pensions administration shared service centre, PeoplePoint, now provides services for 34,500 civil servants from 39 public service bodies. The payroll shared service centre, PSSC, has 103,000 payees, of whom 57,000 are pensioners, from 43 different Government organisations. The financial management shared services project has begun the development of a new finance technology solution for the Government. The introduction of this single finance technology platform will replace 31 existing finance systems across Departments and offices and will facilitate transaction processing in the finance shared service centre. This is why a provision of €45.173 million is sought for Vote 18 and these projects which, by their nature, require a certain amount of upfront investment.

Vote 12, for superannuation and retired allowances, primarily provides for pension and retirement lump sum costs for civil servants, including prison officers, and pension payments for dependants. Year-to-year variation in expenditure on this Vote is primarily driven by the number of individuals who will opt to retire before reaching their compulsory retirement age and whose years of service and grade and pay level are variable and uncertain.

The Estimate I am proposing today, involving a net provision of €359.9 million, represents a decrease of some €32 million or an 8% drop on the 2016 net Estimate. This decrease in provision is largely attributable to an increase in contributions from the single public service pension scheme.

The committee has been supplied with details of various other Votes but I will leave it at that for now. I commend the 2017 Estimates to the select committee and I will be happy to answer any questions which may arise.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and now call on Deputy Sherlock to contribute.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minster and his officials for attending today's meeting. We are currently going through a process to establish various commissions of inquiry and tribunals. Taking the last two or three years, to date, how much have we spent on tribunals of inquiry, commissions of investigation and Oireachtas inquiries?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his question and will share the figures with him. I will start, however, by making clear that all the tribunals and commissions of inquiry that took place were pieces of work that needed to be done. They include the investigation on a very important matter, whose terms of reference are currently being settled by the House. All this work needed to be done in the public interest and I know that all Members of the Oireachtas are approaching the current process in that spirit.

As regards costs, the figures I have to hand cover the period from 2007 to 2017, including the cost of all the different tribunals and commissions of inquiry in that period. The cumulative cost in that period is €420,593,000. The breakdown for tribunals is €314 million, of which the Mahon tribunal represented a cost of €119 million and the Moriarty tribunal a cost of €54 million. The tribunal of inquiry into the infection with HIV and hepatitis C of persons with haemophilia and related matters, or the Lindsay tribunal, represented a cost of €46 million.

As regards commissions of inquiry, the cumulative cost was €21 million. The cost of the Ryan and Laffoy process was €80.67 million. The various reports that have taken place across that period, including the Ferns report, the Lourdes hospital inquiry and the Monageer inquiry, represented a cost of €5.2 million.

These figures are accurate as of December 2016 in respect of some of these tribunals. Third party costs remain to be paid with regard to the Smithwick, Morris and Mahon tribunals.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. The sum of €420 million is an extraordinary figure over such a relatively short period. I agree with the Minister that every party needs to have natural justice and the truth needs to be sought.

However, I wonder whether such a cost should be borne, ultimately by the taxpayer, in seeking truth and justice, regardless of the subject matter. I think we all agree that these are important issues that should be the subject of tribunals of inquiry and commissions of investigation. However, does Deputy Donohoe, in his role as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, believe there is now a case to be made for these costs to be considered? I imagine the vast bulk of them are legal costs which accrue to legal practices. Has the Minister given any thought to the idea that we need to find some mechanism whereby truth and justice are sought and reported on in a way that does not put such a burden on the taxpayer? I take the point the Minister may make about the relatively recent referendum and so on but I do not believe that the Irish taxpayer wants to continue to bear these costs, particularly if they are, in the main, legal costs. There may now be some need for reform of this process because it is arguable that it is unsustainable.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said to the Deputy earlier, I want to be very careful, particularly in the context of the public debate that took place recently on the setting up of a tribunal on certain disclosures and in the context of the debate taking place in the Dáil today. I wish to be very clear in recognising that there are truths in our society that need a form of inquiry. At each point of the process are the people and then the Oireachtas, and Governments have had to respond to the question of how we can get to those truths. All the information the Deputy has asked for I have given him, and all the information I have shared with the committee is in the spirit of recognising the need to deal correctly and fairly with certain matters. Alongside this, the issue of cost must be considered. For this very reason, the House, this Government and the previous Government developed the concept of commissions of inquiry and investigation. They offer a different way of dealing with the kinds of truths we are debating and they have brought a different level of predictability and control to costs that the taxpayer may face. It is incumbent on all of us - and this is the attitude that has been shown by colleagues here - to be aware that as we consider the form of inquiry that is necessary, we are also conscious of issues that will develop in the future regarding how we conduct inquiries. This is a matter on which the Comptroller and Auditor General has already commented. The Comptroller and Auditor General said in a report in 2008, "The State faces a considerable challenge to achieve predictability and financial control in the case of tribunals of inquiry which operate under the authority of the legislature without compromising their independent investigations or the constitutional rights of witnesses." This points to a challenge we have, that is, even if we do all the work we can on issues such as rates payable to legal counsel, once the Oireachtas makes a decision on the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry or a tribunal, parties to that then have rights that they will seek to have vindicated. We then must trust, as we do, a person of standing in our State to make decisions about the conduct of that commission, which invests in him or her an independence. Alongside this, my Department will do all it can, as will the Department of Justice and Equality, to ensure that this work is done in an affordable and sustainable way.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the point the Minister makes. Ultimately, it is the Minister's Department that will sign the cheque, or through which the cheque will come, regarding the fees structure and the entirety of the costs. Lest there be any ambiguity about my position on this, let me state that the right to have one's rights vindicated and be represented legally is absolutely sacrosanct, and I think we would all agree with that. However, is there a process by which costs can be capped while recognising the rights of all parties before a commission of investigation or a tribunal of inquiry? Going back to the 2008 report, it seems that if the Comptroller and Auditor General is acknowledging the spiralling costs - at the risk of putting words into his mouth - then those costs are out of control. They are astronomical and ridiculous as regards the pursuit of justice or truth, depending on the content of the inquiry. The Irish taxpayer has the right to ensure that the most cost-effective mechanism is used, even if this means legislating for an upper cap on costs per hour or whatever formula is used to determine costs. I put it to the Minister that it is not possible for the Irish taxpayer to sustain over ten years a cost of €420.593 million. There needs to be a policy shift somewhere.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding commissions of inquiry, we have structures in place to deal with the matter of legal costs. On tribunals of inquiry, this is a matter in respect of which we rely on the leadership of the person leading the tribunal. It must be acknowledged that Mr. Justice Charleton, who is leading the disclosures tribunal, has already been very clear about his view on cost. That was a decision and a statement he made and one I certainly welcome. My Department will fulfil its role as best as possible - along with the Department of Justice - in dealing with the issue of cost. However, I wish to make one point in this regard, and I do so again in the spirit of acknowledging the need to interrogate the truth about very important matters. This is an issue of which Deputy Brendan Howlin, Deputy Sherlock's party leader, would have been aware. Deputy Howlin previously held my position and it was he who introduced the legislation on commissions of inquiry. As was his right, Deputy Howlin called for a tribunal of inquiry in this instance in light of everything we have learned. This is why I believe tribunals of inquiry should be used carefully. However, clearly, a tribunal of inquiry was and is the right course of action to deal with the issue of disclosures regarding the operation of An Garda Síochána.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not trying to be partisan in my approach here, and I do take the point-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nor am I.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----about the cost of tribunals. The mechanism is one thing. Whether it is a tribunal of inquiry or a commission of investigation, the appropriate mechanism is found. There is still the issue of the cost. I will close the matter off now because I take the point the Minister is making.

Moving on, I think we all support the work of the Public Service Pay Commission. We support the Minister's endeavours in this regard because I think we want to ensure there is a formula that allows for a transition that is as seamless as possible after the Lansdowne Road agreement sunset. How does the Minister envisage the outworkings of the Public Service Pay Commission and how it will transition into the potential for a further negotiation downstream on public sector pay? I ask for his personal perspective on this.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My anticipation of how this process and the related negotiation will develop is as follows. The Public Service Pay Commission is now in the middle of receiving submissions and meeting stakeholders.

I thank its members for all their work. I thank the board and panel that has agreed to do this work for all the effort that has been put in. I asked in the terms of reference that they would complete their work by quarter 2 of this year. My expectation is they will complete the work between April and May. That report will then provide an important input to negotiations that will commence shortly after that in respect of whether we can secure a further collective agreement.

The broad thrust of the work they are doing is to examine what could a roadmap be for the affordable and orderly unwinding of the FEMPI legislation, which will take time. Matters they are considering relate to rates of pay within the public service. They are being compared to elsewhere, where appropriate, within the private sector or where we have integrated labour markets comparable with other jurisdictions and examining the differentials. When the report is complete, I anticipate a period of reflection will take place for a number of weeks within government on the matter and then among the interlocutors within the trade union movement. I hope we will commence negotiations before the summer and my ambition is to conclude them well in advance of budget 2018.

I addressed this matter at another forum earlier. Those discussions will be difficult. We are operating at a time, understandably, of high expectations and balancing the needs of our public servants and their wages against other demands and needs our country has in respect of service improvements and investing for the future will make the negotiations challenging, but I am approaching them in the spirit that we need a collective agreement, which is the fairest and most effective way for a small, open economy to manage one third of its public expenditure.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The emergency framework is still in place but is the issue of those who are above the current threshold in respect of pension restoration working its way into discussions?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I have asked the commission to take account of, and offer input into, public service pensions.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister satisfied that the Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015 is working?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am. I have the report on the review of the Act on my desk and I am considering it at the moment. I aim to publish it soon. This legislation has had a big effect. I have had lots of contact in respect of the operation of the Act. The Deputy will see when the report is published that we have had a number of submissions on how it is working and all of them were made in the spirit of making it work more effectively. Some people feel it could be less onerous. I would like to outline the scale of participation to date in advance of publishing the report. A total of 11,0000 returns have been submitted to the lobbying register and the public can view them on www.lobbying.ie. A total of 1,600 persons and organisations are on the register. Whatever discussion we have about changes that may be made, those figures point to the success of the intervention. It is to the great personal credit of my predecessor, Deputy Howlin, that he put this legislation in place. I will publish the review imminently.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The move towards transparency has been welcomed by everybody and I hope vested interests will not seek to undo that or try to restrict the legislation in any way in the review. It is important that everybody has sight of who is registered as a lobbyist for obvious reasons.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy. Regardless of the views of some, any adjustments that I make will be in spirit of trying to make the legislation work better and I will not make changes that will reduce the transparency, details of which I have shared with the committee. The only spirit that I will approach this in is that it is an Act which is still recent and the period of implementation has been relatively short by legislative standards. We must make sure not to make adjustments that appear justified following a relatively short period of implementation.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister had regard to the post-programme surveillance report?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister a perspective on that in respect of the need to ensure ongoing capital investment for infrastructural purposes from a stability and growth perspective? The report is anaemic. It is a little like the teacher using the red pen to mark the copybook. That does not necessarily educate or offer solutions to the student as to where he or she has gone wrong or outline whether the teacher's own practices could be better. The report seems to be very much a desktop exercise. I do not criticise the originators of the report but the limiting factors of the Stability and Growth Pact in terms of our ability to invest more in capital expenditure for infrastructural purposes to boost the domestic economy is a bugbear of mine. How are the politics of that being played out at European Council level? We are facing uncertain times and there is turbulence ahead. It is not enough for the authors to describe the scenario here; there must be more about where the European Commission or the Council intervene to assist us to meet the Stability and Growth Pact and other targets in order that we can meet the challenges of the so-called "clouds on the horizon", to use their phrase. The pact is too restrictive. It does not allow the Government to operate within a wider envelope to boost the European economy further and to boost the domestic economy, in particular. What is the Minister's perspective on that?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a need for us to increase capital investment within the State but we have increased such investment this year compared to a year ago by €375 million or more than 10%. We have a plan in place to sustainably increase public expenditure in capital formation over the next number of years, and, later in the year, I will make a decision on the allocation of in excess €2 billion more in capital formation between now and 2021. The Taoiseach has also directed that he wants a longer-term capital plan drawn up across a ten-year horizon, which we will act on. I would like to find all the options I can to increase capital investment within the State because it is an essential element of how we respond to social need at home but also the changing environment abroad.

However, as I say regularly, we need to move away from looking at the amounts invested in the past and saying we will match them because rent-seeking went on across that period and assets were acquired that inflated prices and we should not tolerate a recurrence of those practices. While it is a little more technical, a different measure we should use is the percentage of our national income we are investing in capital formation.

The 50 year average for our country is approximately 3.8% to 4%. We are below that level at the moment but we have a path to get up to that point in the next few years.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the point, is it not? Whether it is articulated through some flexibility in terms of the Stability and Growth Pact or European Council agreement on the point just made by the Minister, there must be some political formula that allows that to happen. It is arguable that we are overly constrained by the rules that exist at the moment. There must be, at an EU level, some mechanism to allow Ireland, from a macro-economic point of view, to invest without falling foul of the very strict rules that exist at present.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those rules exist because of the risk in other jurisdictions where current and capital expenditure were conflated; they looked like the same thing and assets were built that ended up not delivering what citizens wanted and not delivering a return. In terms of how we deal with the matter, I want to explore the options in that regard, including the role of the European Investment Bank, EIB and what we can do to increase our rate of capital expenditure at a quicker pace. I am considering the role of public, private partnerships, PPPs, but I will be careful with them. I know, as a former Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, the role that PPPs played in delivering road projects all over the country, for example. However, just because the liability is contingent does not mean that the liability is not there in the future. That is a matter with which we need to take care.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The liability can be financed out over a relatively long period of time. If one is talking about roads or transport, for instance, there are ways of factoring that in. Financing over a long period of time allows one to meet the repayment costs in a relatively easy fashion.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes and PPPs involve what are called bullet payments, where one pays, over a longer time period, a bullet payment per annum to cover both the costs and maintenance of the project. Maintenance is an issue that does not get enough consideration. Those bullet payments can be very considerable, not just in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport but also in the Departments of Education and Skills and Health. In the former, they can amount to tens of millions of euro per year. My recollection is that across the coming years and across all of the PPPs that we have delivered, the accumulated value of the bullet payments is between €3 billion and €4 billion. Those payments are spread over a longer time period which is why PPPs are attractive but, as I said earlier, we need to be really careful with them. Just because a liability does not sit directly on the sovereign balance sheet does not mean the liability does not exist. It needs to be met out of current expenditure in the future and that is why care is needed with this approach. The review we are undertaking of the capital plan includes a module on this matter.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to move away from the current situation where, for example, I would make a pitch for the Atlantic corridor and connectivity between Cork, Limerick and Galway and on up the western seaboard. Often it is a case of whoever shouts the loudest, from a political point of view, gets the spoils in terms of capital investment. We must find some other model. If I understand the Minister correctly, there is a suggestion that PPPs and engagement with the EIB on projects of the type to which I have just referred could be viable as options in terms of building out funding for transport related capital infrastructure.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, they could be but my preference, where possible, is the use of the conventional Exchequer-funded model. That delivers greater certainty with regard to future costs and the State can play a direct role in the delivery of the project. There are merits in that which should be borne in mind. We will look at this on a case by case basis. I remember that Deputy Sherlock was a formidable advocate for the Charleville bypass. Is that right? Or was it the Mallow bypass-----

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mallow and Charleville but there is a constituency boundary-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recognise the Deputy's efforts with regard to the Mallow bypass. I hope we will have the opportunity to consider such projects later in the year.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an irony in the fact that I am talking about PPPs and the Minister is talking about State investment.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, yes.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his responses. I will direct my last question, which is on the post-programme surveillance report, to the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. That reports makes reference to the potential for volatility in global financial markets to spill over into the Irish financial sector. Perhaps the Minister of State has not studied the report yet in detail but I would welcome his views on it. There is a suggestion that Brexit-related volatility could spill over into the Irish financial sector and could have a downstream effect on jobs. That seems like a strange thing to say, given that there is apparently a lot of interest in the Irish financial services sector at the moment from parties across the pond. Does the Minister of State have a view on that?

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be volatility and wherever there is volatility, there are risks. One of the things that this Government has been stressing, as we approach the formal start of the Article 50 negotiations, is the importance of putting in place transitional arrangements to act as a safety net for the market. This will ensure that as we go through the negotiation process, dealing with the terms of the exit and the terms of any new arrangements, there will be clarity for financial services firms as to where we are going. The international financial services sector is the plumbing and architecture that is underneath most economies, in terms of finance for small and medium enterprises - not just those enterprises that export and trade but also those with a domestic focus. We must make sure that as we go through this process there is not too much volatility for them to face that might disrupt their businesses, if, for example, the negotiations do not go well in a particular week. We must also ensure that as we approach the end of the two-year negotiation period, the potential cliff-edge scenario is not used for brinkmanship.

I have been relaying that message very strongly to my counterparts in Europe. I met the Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, with responsibility for financial stability, financial services and capital markets union last week, Commissioner Dombrovskis. I had flagged that to the committee a number of weeks before going over. I raised the importance of that issue with the Commissioner. I also raised my concerns around regulatory arbitrage or competition happening in the European space at the moment as people vie to attract business from London. I stressed the importance of not lowering standards in any part of the Single Market because given the current interconnectedness, there would be a spillover if a company of significance were to move to a jurisdiction on a promise that could not be delivered. I discussed that with the Commissioner and with members of the ECON committee.

I presented a paper on risks and opportunities to the Brexit Cabinet sub-committee in November 2016. So far this year I have had a number of consultations here and in London with different sectors to make sure we are across all the risks and opportunities. There is a potential opportunity for job creation, that is true. I spoke about that yesterday in the wake of one announcement of a company in the insurance sector that is not coming here. There will be an ebb and flow to this. Jobs will relocate out of London; they will not all come to Ireland but we will get more than our fair share, in my view. That will act as some sort of mitigation against the down sides and risks that exist for other sectors in our economy. We are looking at this issue on a daily basis.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may, I will continue with a number of questions to the Minister of State, on the basis of a liberal interpretation of the purposes of this meeting. Regarding the decision of AIG to locate its European regional headquarters in Luxembourg as opposed to Dublin, does the Minister of State believe we were close to getting that investment? What were the factors that worked against Ireland in the end, given that AIG already has a significant operation in the IFSC, owns Laya Healthcare and is very familiar with the Irish offering? Is the Minister of State disappointed with that decision? Does he believe that there are wider lessons to be learned as we try to attract other financial services investment from London?

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am disappointed with that decision, but I must be careful about what I say about individual companies. AIG announced a decision and informed me of it early yesterday after making it. I have had a number of meetings with AIG and the people making the decision, as has the Minister, Deputy Noonan. I have not yet had a chance to speak with him about the decision and what we might do now. My feeling is that the reason AIG is not coming to Ireland has nothing to do with any shortcoming on our part. A great deal of work has been done in terms of financial services and their potential, particularly insurance. AIG has a strong business in Ireland, does good work and has invested in our economy and jobs.

The Acting Chairman will undoubtedly have seen today's statement from the Central Bank about the number of applications from insurance entities that it has received and is progressing. Some companies will come to Ireland, but not all. It remains to be seen whether particular ecosystems will develop in certain sectors, be that payments, insurance and reinsurance or the like, but we are doing everything we can. For example, IDA Ireland ensures that questions from its client companies on the IFS2020 strategy and how that might work are answered. The Central Bank has been acquiring new resources and reallocating others to deal with the levels of interest it has seen. I must be careful in what I say about why I believe AIG did not come to Ireland.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to put on the record that AIG has not made any criticism of Ireland or the Irish offering.

Has the Minister of State scoped out the expectations of what we can achieve in terms of attracting investment from the City of London and not just to Dublin? He referred to the regions and other centres, for example, Cork, Kilkenny and Galway. Does he have expectations of what can be done? He indicated that the second quarter of this year was going to be the critical period in which decisions would be made.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have spoken a great deal about Cork. I get in trouble for emphasising it so much, but that might not happen in this room this morning.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would never do that.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most people do not understand that, when we discuss international financial services and Ireland's offering, one third of those jobs are located outside Dublin. I have visited Cork a number of times. Most recently, I was there to open a new company that was moving into front-office functions. Connecting Cork and the chambers have been doing a fantastic job. They have visited London with me to try to attract business and investment.

If one is considering relocating to another jurisdiction so as to maintain access to the Single Market, office space and staff costs in Cork are as much as 75% cheaper than they are in London. It is attractive and has great connectivity, with eight flights per day from London to Cork.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Quality of life. These are all important factors.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Quality of public representation.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will come back to that.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to cut across the Minister of State, but Dublin will not be able to meet its housing needs any time soon, so Cork is well placed.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I constantly make is to consider all of Ireland and its overall offering. IFS2020 has a target of increasing our offering by 30%, or approximately 10,000 jobs, over a five-year period. According to last year's figures, the current figure is just under 40,000. As we increase the number further, I am committed to maintaining at least one third of the overall number outside of Dublin. That is important.

As we came off the back of the summer months last year, we understood that businesses would not wait for the Article 50 process to begin. Some knew that the time horizons for relocating - the application process and moving staff across - would take longer than the two-year period. We continue to work with many uncertainties, but businesses like certainty. When they undertook due diligence exercises prior to the referendum result, many noticed benefits in consolidating their various business arrangements in different parts of Europe. Ireland figured strongly in certain regards.

As we approached the end of the year, it became clear to us that they were going to start making decisions in the first half of this year. That has happened. I must be careful about managing expectations, though. At yesterday's Brexit Cabinet sub-committee, I spoke about some of the positive decisions that had been made in our favour only to find out afterwards that one of those had gone against us. That will happen; there will be an ebb and flow.

We cannot yet put a number on the companies. In Davos, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, referred to there being more than 100 expressions of interest to the IDA. In the insurance field alone, I understand that the Central Bank has received five to ten applications for authorisation and a further 20 companies are at the pre-application stage.

It is difficult for us to discuss the exact number of companies for a couple of reasons. Some will choose Ireland. They will make that decision with their boards in the coming months and submit their applications. Others will choose Ireland as a contingency that they do not need to trigger until much later in the process, so the number is difficult to know. One Asian bank that I have dealt with decided that Dublin would be its gateway into the Single Market. That is the play that we have been making strongly into Asia. The bank's initial figure was in the teens, which was good considering the bank in question, but having monitored the situation as it has developed, that number will grow. If such companies cannot put a number on it, though, neither can I. There is significant interest and we are working everyday to ensure that we are across it.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask the Minister of State about Vote 39 - Office of Government Procurement and the frameworks that have been put in place. The output target for 2017 is 52. In terms of SMEs getting access to these frameworks and public contracts, is the Minister of State satisfied that enough is being done on, for example, minimum turnover requirements and the need to have completed projects of a certain scale in the past so as to provide accessibility to SMEs? What is his assessment?

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair, enough is never being done in that we must continually reform the process as we introduce it. The Office of Government Procurement, OGP, is a new entity and has done a tremendous amount of work in a short period, but we must continually review what we are doing and get feedback.

I will have to discuss Cork again. I visited it with the OGP as part of the work that we were doing through Deputies and Senators in each constituency. I chair an advisory group of business firms' representatives - the Small Firms Association, the Construction Industry Federation and so on. Something that we decided as part of an outreach programme was to use Members in their constituencies, given that they speak with small businesses week in, week out about their procurement concerns. We decided to go on a roadshow and, through political offices and the chambers, invited them to meetings where we could explain what the OGP had been doing in recent years, give advice on using eTenders and so on, and take questions and feedback. We did that in UCC in December. A number of businesses attended that positive engagement. It was important for me to hear directly their feedback about some of the problems that they had been experiencing, given that second guessing our officials is an important role that every Minister must play in terms of undertaking a critical analysis of our functions. We have just had a meeting in Galway. It was very good, with even more businesses in attendance. We are planning for meetings in Mayo and Sligo in the coming weeks.

While we must keep reforming this space, it is important to note that 95% of the State's goods and services are procured from Irish-based companies, with the majority being SMEs. However, we still do not have the right way of qualifying an SME. We are working to European standards, which refer to 250 employees or less. When we discuss SMEs, though, most of us are not talking about a company that is so large. One of the pieces of work that we are undertaking with industry is determining how to get figures for micro-enterprises - companies of ten or 20 people - that feel like they are losing out to some of the new procurement processes that we introduced. We lot contracts together before breaking them back down again by regions, but enterprises might not be aware of that. In one industry, the average tender might only have been €20,000, which would be below the €25,000 threshold, but because the OGP decided to lump contracts together, enterprises were not aware, did not receive notifications, were not registered on eTenders and missed out. We now have metrics in place to improve this situation, but the main purpose of my outreach in each constituency is to let small businesses know that matters have changed. This does not mean that they have to lose out. We must be mindful that we work in a Single Market. While trying to favour SMEs, we cannot shut out other European companies. However, it is also worth noting - I can get the committee the exact figures - that we do better from procurement in other European countries than companies from those countries do from procurement in Ireland.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

The Minister spoke to Deputy Sherlock about the public service commission, which is ongoing, and how he envisages its timeline. His ambition is for a successor agreement in place prior to the budget in October.

When does the Minister anticipate the content of such an agreement will take effect?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The norm in the past is a folding-in period between one agreement and its replacement. In the past there has been a period of months at the end of one agreement and beginning of the other where they have overlapped. I am answering the question with reference to what has happened in the past. I will outline the Government approach on all these matters in the Oireachtas and publicly after the pay commission produces its report.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Lansdowne Road agreement expires in September 2018.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That is when the agreement is due to come to an end.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has spoken about an overlap period. His ambition is to have a new agreement in place by budget time so he can provide for it in budget 2018. There could be a significant overlap period. We could be looking at the end of the Lansdowne Road agreement being brought forward.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It all depends on the nature of the agreement we are able to reach, if we can reach an agreement. It would not be sensible for me to conclude work on budget 2018 without first knowing where we stand with our public service wage bill for that period. That is why I aim to have the work done, if I can, in advance of getting ready for that budget.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision in the current fiscal projections for 2018 in respect of public pay provides for the Lansdowne Road agreement.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No more and no less.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, they do.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the current position?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of 2018, that is correct. I will give the Acting Chairman the figures.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For 2018, the figure is €287 million.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the cost of the Lansdowne Road agreement in 2018.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, which means the cumulative value of the agreement across the three-year period is €844 million.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any provision above and beyond the cost of the Lansdowne Road agreement in 2018 will be a new provision. It will be new money that will have to be provided for in budget 2018.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, if there is any change in that figure of €287 million, it is a figure I need to be able to find within the context of budget 2018.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since the beginning of our meeting, the CSO has released its latest quarterly economic data. Its figure for 2016 is 5.2% of GDP growth which is about 1% ahead of what was anticipated at budget time so it is more positive. What impact will that have on the deficit, debt-to-GDP or the fiscal space for 2018? Has that been worked out yet?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it has not. We get into the world of inflaters and deflators with those figures. The CSO has just released the figures. In the coming weeks, the Department of Finance will need to consider the impact of that in terms of the availability of resources for 2018. In terms of the timing of all that, over the past number of years, the Government has aimed to provide and update to the Oireachtas on it in advance of the summer. That is what we will look to do again.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we have a stability programme update in April as in previous years or will it be another summer economic statement? Will the summer economic statement now be an annual fixture?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am certainly planning to do a summer economic statement again for this year, as is the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. It provides a good opportunity for framing what will happen after the summer period and my understanding, from discussing the matter with the Minister, Deputy Noonan, is there will be a further stability programme update in line with previous years.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has to be with the commission by the end of April.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the end of April.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has spoken a number of times about the gradual unwinding of FEMPI. What is its current value in terms of savings, having regard to the Garda deal and the accelerated increase of €1,000 in public service pay? What is the value that remains of savings for the State?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is €1.4 billion per annum.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

€1.4 billion per annum.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is roughly split between savings as a result of what has happened with pension contributions and the value of pensions and also the value of wages.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the Minister says pensions, does he mean the pension levy-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mean the effect of-----

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for existing employees?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it. I have referred to three different factors. First is the impact of the PRD, second is the impact of the PSPR for current pensions and third is the fact that pension levels have come down as earnings went down for a period in the State.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister deconstruct the jargon for those who are outside of these walls?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The PRD refers to earnings and the PSPR refers to pensions.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Existing pensioners is the-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

PSPR

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----public service pension reduction.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly it.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister confirmed already to Deputy Sherlock that they are included in the work of the public service pay commission.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, what I said to Deputy Sherlock was that the matter of public service pensions will be taken into account in the work of the public service pay commission. We will take that into account in the negotiations that we have in the run up to the summer. As has been the case in the past, we will be negotiating with the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That is all there is legal provision for.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Specifically considering changes to the cuts, is the public service pension reduction, which existing pensioners have been carrying, something that will be considered as part of the collective agreement?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is something that will be considered as part of the broader choice the Government will need to make on the collective agreement. To give an example of how that has worked in the past, which I know the Acting Chairman is familiar with, we have a faster pace of PSPR reduction than we do of PRD reduction. All of that flowed out of decisions and choices that were made across the period of the Lansdowne Road agreement.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have a breakdown of the €1.4 billion between the three key elements: the salary cuts under FEMPI, the PSPR for existing pensioners and the PRD - pension levy, as we call it - for existing public service employees?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can give the Acting Chairman a further update on this matter. Now I can give him the split between savings generated by lower levels of pay and savings generated by the PRD. As I said earlier, the overall value of the Lansdowne Road agreement savings are €1.4 billion. The exact split is €692 million-----

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the Lansdowne Road savings; it is the FEMPI savings of €1.4 billion.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me. My words were wrong there. The FEMPI reductions at the end of the Lansdowne Road agreement are €692 million in pay savings and €720 million from the impact of the PRD, which gives a cumulative figure of €1.4 billion. When the Lansdowne Road agreement is implemented, as is being done at the moment, and the pay restoration that is committed to takes place, there will be €1.4 billion of outstanding savings still in place.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do the PSPR savings in respect of existing pensioners sit within the €720 million the Minister called out as the figure for the PRD?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will have to come back to the Acting Chairman on that.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What has been agreed already - the €50 million gross cost of the Garda deal and the €120 million cost of bringing forward the €1,000 increase to April - adds up to €170 million. The Minister has said that will be found from within existing resources. Will he elaborate on that?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have two different figures there. We have the €50 million, which was a consequence of the Labour Court recommendation. That is being dealt with in two ways. The Department of Justice and Equality has already outlined in answers to priority questions asked by the Acting Chairman's colleague, Deputy O'Callaghan, and perhaps also by the Acting Chairman, the itemised savings it has made in its Vote to do it. The Government met the obligation of the other portion of that, the further €25 million, through an increase in expenditure plans for 2017. On the €120 million figure, obviously all of that occurred when we got into 2017 and we made the agreement with the public services committee of ICTU in January 2017.

I will indicate during the year where that funding will be delivered. It will be delivered through a mixture of options, namely, savings, tax revenue and choices we make over other projects. My commitment is that public services will not be affected as a result. Despite all the questions I faced when I made the agreement, its merit can be seen clearly in the run-up to the potential industrial dispute involving the INMO and nurses. There was a new context to deal with such issues, stretching across the entire trade union movement. The week before last a joint statement was issued by the Department and the ICTU public services committee on the commitment of both parties to the Lansdowne Road agreement.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the ceiling on projected expenditure in 2017?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no change in the figures I published as part of the Revised Estimates. They proposed total gross voted expenditure of €58,072 million, an increase of €43 million or 0.07% of the €58 billion set out in the expenditure report for 2017.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the ceiling on expenditure?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be the equivalent of that figure.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Projected expenditure comes in at the ceiling.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the status of the ceiling in terms of EU and Irish fiscal rules? What would the consequences be if the ceiling was breached?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Breaching it would form part of the review process which is part of the excessive deficit procedure, in which we continue to participate. The parties to the agreement, the IMF, the European Commission and the ECB, would then offer a view on the matter.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it true that exceeding the ceiling would be deemed to be a breach?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but we have not breached the expenditure ceiling in recent years. In 2016, when I had direct responsibility for expenditure ceilings by Department, although the Minister for Finance set the overall figure, we delivered the figures we had said we would deliver. The underspend at the end of 2016 was ahead of where we expected it to be.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Actual overall expenditure in 2016 was within the ceiling.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. Total expenditure across the period was €55.980 billion which was inside the expenditure ceiling we had set out at the start of the year.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Had the Department projected at the start of the year that expenditure would come in on the button?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. In the middle of the year I went to the Oireachtas and sought approval to change the expenditure ceiling for the Departments of Health and Justice and Equality. We increased the expenditure ceiling for the Department of Health by just under €500 million and for the Department of Justice and Equality by between €40 million and €50 million. Owing to events in the first half of last year the Estimates had not gone before the Oireachtas; therefore, we did not revise them as such. We put forward Estimates that were different from what we had previously had and they formed the basis of the expenditure ceiling. We did not breach them, nor have we done so since 2011.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it the case that in 2017 there is no headroom at all? Even if there is greater than expected revenue from taxation receipts, we cannot match it with expenditure that is greater than expected because to do so would bring us above the ceiling? What is the position on Supplementary Estimates in 2017? If the Department of Health comes back to the Minister in September and states it is over budget by €300 and that it does not have an equivalent amount in savings across other expenditure areas, what will the position be?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The management of ceilings at national level is the responsibility of the Department of Finance and I deal with their implementation. In 2015 there was huge damage caused by flooding and bridges had fallen down which needed to be fixed. It required €110 million to be found in January or February. The rules on Estimates and expenditure ceilings permit some change but only in narrow circumstances. One has to be able to demonstrate that any change was met by stable changes in revenue. I am not planning any change in the figures I have outlined, but things could happen during the year such as a natural event, to which Deputies would expect the Government to respond. They would criticise us if we did not.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The European Commission has to sign off on increasing the ceilings during the year on the exceptional grounds to which the Minister referred.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. The European Commission would offer a view after the event.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. What is the position on Supplementary Estimates this year?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is as I have outlined. There are very narrow opportunities to change expenditure ceilings and I am not aware of any event or development which would lead me to have to approve any. I send a clear message to my colleagues in government on a daily basis that they have their money for 2017 and that the Minister for Finance and I expect them to deliver their plans within these figures. The message is well understood in the Cabinet, as has been demonstrated by the fact that expenditure ceilings have been observed, year after year.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the resolution of the Bus Éireann dispute involves a greater payment from the Department of Social Protection under, for example, the free travel scheme, that can only happen if the Department has made savings elsewhere within its Vote. Is that correct?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First and foremost, it would have to come from within its Vote. If a Minister makes a certain policy choice, he or she will have to agree the expenditure consequences with me. There is a narrow set of circumstances relating to exceptional events in which a small change can be permitted, but I am not planning anything along those lines.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there indications that the health Vote is in line with projections? What are the early signs? This is an issue every year.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We look at these things on a quarterly basis because swings can occur month by month which make it impossible to analyse. My Department has agreed the quarterly roll-out of expenditure ceilings and I am not aware of any concern.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister spoke to Deputy Sean Sherlock about the review of the capital plan. When does the Minister anticipate that it will be finalised?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the second half of the year. My objective is to have it completed in the period leading up to budget 2018.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What extra resources are available as part of the review?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will be between €2.2 billion and €2.4 billion.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the plan reprioritise certain projects and add new ones?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The review is under way and I am receiving submissions from other Departments. In the coming days we will begin the period of public consultation.

On the Acting Chairman's question as to whether it will be new matters or a reprioritisation of matters, it will be a mixture of both. There are projects that need to happen sooner than anticipated. We need to move away from the approach of saying it is a capital review where many new projects are not announced. There are projects, with which the Acting Chairman will be familiar - I will not name them because it will be assumed that they will happen more speedily than planned and I will get into trouble-----

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned Mallow, Buttevant and Limerick.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

See what I mean.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As his colleague has a fondness for Cork, we can join the dots.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is also the Cork-Limerick motorway project. That is a long shot too.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that there are proposed projects that need to happen and we will examine if they can be undertaken sooner.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many projects were mentioned in the plan published in 2015, but it was not altogether clear if funding was specifically being provided for them. I do not want to get into individual projects, but to take the example of the N28 project, the Cork-Ringaskiddy Road, it received a mention in favourable terms. It was not clear, however, that money was being provided for it in the plan to make it happen. We will have other discussions in reviewing the capital plan, but the priorities should be very clear, instead of just-----

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Speaking as the Minister who crafted the last section-----

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is competition within Cork also.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were projects that were not mentioned in the plan. It included the provision of funding for the design, procurement and planning permission process for a number of projects and their building at an early stage. I have answered the question directly. We will have to examine some of the existing commitments to see if we are happy with the timing of projects planned to happen.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe; the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and their officials for assisting the committee in its consideration of the Revised Estimates. The committee will meet again at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 6 April 2017 to consider the Public Sector Standards Bill.