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

I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well following his reappointment as a Minister of State. I thank his officials for making contact with me to brief me on the Bill. There are 20 amendments to the National Shared Services Office Bill 2016 and I propose that we go directly to those amendments. I remind Members before we start to please turn off their mobile phones. If we have not concluded by 12.45 p.m., we will have to adjourn the meeting because votes will probably be taken in the Lower House at that stage.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we go through each section?

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

Yes, we will go through each section.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:“ “Committee of Public Accounts” means the committee of Dáil Éireann established under the rules and standing orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General;”.I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment. This amendment is a simple definition so that when we talk about the Committee of Public Accounts, there is a definition of what that is. The definition is also used in section 2 of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquires, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. The reason this amendment has been tabled is because a number of other amendments we have proposed reference the Committee of Public Accounts, so it is in order to provide a definition. It is a technical amendment.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I am not opposed to Deputy Cullinane's amendment, which I welcome. I would be delighted to accept it.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:“(5) The Office shall be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2014 as a public body.”.

This amendment is to make sure that the office which is being established under this Bill is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2014. It may well be already, but this serves to make it explicit in the actual Bill that that is the case. It is important there is full transparency and accountability for an office that would have an oversight role for tens of millions of euros of procurement funding, namely, taxpayer's money. It is erring on the side of caution by ensuring that it is explicitly referenced in the Bill that the office shall be subject to the Freedom of Information Act as a public body. The word "shall" is very important.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept this because it is inferred. I accept all the Deputy's legitimate concerns, but it can be taken that under section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 that the NSSO is already subjected to that Act. I do not propose to accept the amendment because the points made have already been captured by the existing freedom of information legislation.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is the case, I accept the Minister of State's bona fides. I will withdraw the amendment.

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

Amendments Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive, and amendment No. 20 are related and will be discussed together.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, line 20, to delete “save”.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive, and amendment No. 20 are technical in nature and have been advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. At present the functions are formulated with reference to the public service bodies as a group. As currently drafted, the putting in place of the first delegation would give the office the power to start providing shared services to all public service bodies. To address this, section 9 (2)(a) will be amended to read: "whenever an order in respect of a public service body is in force, the Office shall have the following functions in respect of that public service body.". It goes on to say that this requires further amendment of paragraphs (1) to (13) to remove references to public service bodies, where appropriate.

Amendment No. 20 is a technical amendment to Schedule 1. The advice of Parliamentary Counsel is to include the national shared services office in the schedule of the public sector bodies. Staff officers and civil servants are in receipt of their own salaries. A further addition to Schedule 1 may be required later and with the consent of the committee this will be considered by the Department officials on Report Stage. As I said, the amendments are technical in nature.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, line 31, after “force” to insert “in respect of a public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, to delete lines 32 to 34 and substitute the following:“(i) entering into an agreement with the public service body (in this Act referred to as a “service agreement”) that specifies the terms and conditions upon which shared services are to be provided to that body;”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, lines 35 and 36, to delete all words from and including “public” in line 35 down to and including line 36 and substitute “the public service body in accordance with the service agreement;”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, lines 1 and 2, to delete “public service bodies” and substitute “the public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, line 5, to delete “public service bodies” and substitute “the public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 9, line 6, to delete “public service bodies” and substitute “the public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 9, lines 9 and 10, to delete “public service bodies” and substitute “the public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, line 11, to delete “public service bodies” and substitute “the public service body”.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 30, to delete “whom” and substitute “which”.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 11, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:“(4) The Office shall, at the request in writing from the Committee of Public Accounts, make available to the Committee of Public Accounts information regarding any costs or fees incurred as a result of the engagement of consultants and advisors.”.

We all accept there has been a great deal of public controversy in the past, fairly or unfairly, in respect of the spend on consultants and advisers by agencies of the State, Departments and organisations which is funded by the taxpayer. In my view it is important the public is satisfied that there is sufficient oversight in regard to the spend on such matters. The Chairman of this committee will understand, as a former Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, that it is important for the Committee of Public Accounts to be able to scrutinise the spending of taxpayers' money, which is one of its core functions. If the spend by this organisation on consultants and advisers was not subject to scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts, that would be a mistake. We need to recognise that confidence in how public money is spent is at an all time low for genuine understandable reasons. The possible misuse of taxpayers' money is an issue of public controversy. Where we have the expertise inhouse in the Civil Service that is where most of the work should be done. Some advisory work is necessary at times but it should be at a minimum and when consultants and advisers are used, the contracts should be subject to proper scrutiny, not just by a Minister but by Members of the Oireachtas.

The intention of my amendment is simply to ensure that the spend by this new office on consultancy and advisers' fees is subject to scrutiny by the Committee of Public Accounts.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Cullinane for his contribution. I do not disagree with anything he said. I served my time under our Chairman and, as we say at home, "he learned me well" during my time on the Committee of Public Accounts.

From a technical point of view the chief executive officer will be the Accounting Officer as is the position in every other State body. Section 17 of the National Shared Services Bill 2016 provides that the CEO is accountable to the Oireachtas through the Committee of Public Accounts, because it will be subjected to audit.

I agree with everything Deputy Cullinane said; he is correct. While the amendment is well meaning, I will not be accepting it because the points he made have been captured in the Bill already. I do not disagree with any of the points he has made.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a distinction being drawn by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Committee of Public Accounts that there is an Accounting Officer and an accountable officer. Is the CEO an accountable officer or an Accounting Officer?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He or she is an Accounting Officer.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Will the accounts of the office that will be established be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the CEO appear before the Committee of Public Accounts for scrutiny?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The spend on consultancy or advisers' fees or any spend would be fully scrutinised by the Committee of Public Accounts, as with all other agencies. Is that correct?

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

What section deals with this?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 16 (1) states that the chief executive shall be the accounting officer, for the purposes of the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts 1866 to 1998, in relation to the appropriation accounts of that office.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why would there be an objection to stating explicitly that: "The Office shall, at the request in writing from the Committee of Public Accounts, make available to the Committee of Public Accounts information regarding any costs or fees...". What I am taking from the Minister's remarks is that he believes this will happen anyway. In order that it is clear and explicit, why would the Minister of State object to adding this amendment to the Bill? What unintended or intended consequences would arise from acceptance of my amendment?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no opposition per se, and as a Government and as Minister of State I totally accept what the Deputy is saying. It can be looked at again on Report Stage to satisfy the Deputy's concern. It was felt that based on the existing construct of the legislation and the construct of the Comptroller and Auditor General Acts, that what the Deputy was seeking was a belt and braces provision, which is already in the Bill, as it is currently drafted. There is no opposition per sebut it was viewed as a duplication of an existing provision that is already in the Bill.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept what the Minister of State is saying, but may I have some guidance in regard to Report Stage? What is the procedure if I reserve the right to come back to this amendment on Report Stage? Do I withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage?

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

Yes, that is correct.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in his new appointment.

Section 17 (3) states that the chief executive shall not be required to give account before a committee for any matter that is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State. That seems very vague and wide, in particular in the context of a body such as this, where there is potential for commercial disputes and issues of costs and procurement ending up in the commercial courts. It seems to give much leeway to a chief executive who may not be inclined to co-operate with a committee to use that section as a reason not to do what we all agree he or she should do.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept Deputy Calleary's point.

I can get clarification and if the Deputy wants we can revisit it on Report Stage. There is no problem. I do not think there is any attempt to conceal in the Bill. If there is any further clarification needed or if I need to bring forward amendments on Report Stage to tighten it up, I will have no difficulty doing so.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 17(1) states: ""Committee" means a Committee appointed by either House of the Oireachtas or jointly by both Houses of the Oireachtas (other than the Committee referred to in section 19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act...". What committee is that? My understanding is that is the Committee of Public Accounts.

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

It is a standing committee.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we are talking about the accountability of the chief executive to the Oireachtas in this section "committee" means all committees which are sectoral committees other than Committee of Public Accounts.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has gone on to the next group. I am accepting those amendments.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is relevant but now that the Minister of State has given me that information, I will withdraw the amendment we are discussing and reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.

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

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related and will be discussed together.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 12, lines 29 to 31, to delete all words from and including "the" where it secondly occurs in line 29 down to and including "or" where it firstly occurs in line 31.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We strayed into that conversation in respect of the last amendment and I have no difficulty accepting Deputy Cullinane's amendment because it brings clarity to the situation.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that amendments Nos. 14 and 15?

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:"(9) The chief executive shall be an accounting officer for the purposes of section 19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.".

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 14, to delete lines 3 to 6 and substitute the following:"(3) The chairperson of the Board shall hold office for a term of 3 years.".

I am opposing the deletion of the restriction on civil servants being appointed to the chair of the National Shared Services Office, NSSO, board because a limiting of the post of chairperson to those who are non-civil servants necessarily restricts the available pool. Extensive knowledge of the wider working context of the Civil Service and public service is critical to the role and, reflecting the service focus of the NSSO, strong and current networks at senior level will also prove vital in executing the responsibilities of the chair.

This amendment has been brought forward to ensure there will be no limit in future on the type of person, if the skill set and calibre are available, on the basis of the person's occupation. It is a technical amendment.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:"(8) For the purposes of this Act only, members of the Board are not employees under section 8 and section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.".

This relates to the use of that section by board members of semi-State bodies to attain contracts of indefinite duration. As the Minister of State is aware, many of the appointments are seen as political appointments. Even if they are not, they are seen as short-term appointments, with a maximum duration of three years sometimes. We have to avoid those appointments going beyond their remit of three years. We have seen instances of people being left on boards for seven years. If they can obtain contracts of indefinite duration that might be problematic and go against the intent of their appointment and the circumstances in which they were appointed in the first place.

Our amendment is sensible, apart from exceptional circumstances, to make sure it is clear that when people are appointed to these positions, only for the purposes of this Act, the members of the board would not be employees under sections 8 and 9 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no difficulty with what Deputy Cullinane is saying and will be glad to accept the amendment.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 15, line 32, after "determine" to insert "subject to review by the Committee as defined under section 17of this Act".

The Minister of State will be aware that there have been many scandals about pay and allowances for board members, some of which has been fair, some in my view, unfair. There has been much public commentary on these issues. There has to be oversight by this committee and specifically the chief executive has to answer for the pay and allowances to the committee. If they are subject to review by the committee, they can be held up if the chief executive does not make a convincing argument for the pay and allowances. If the chief executive wants to increase pay and allowances that should be subject to review by the committee.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Cullinane is suggesting oversight. While I do not have a difficulty per sewith that, remuneration for board members as proposed in the Bill forms a wider part of the Government's public service pay policy and is set in the context of the relevant qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the board members as they apply across the entire public sector.

Government pay policy is the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform who will be best placed to establish remuneration rates for board members for the body as for other bodies established by legislation elsewhere. It is not clear that the committee would be the best place to consider and review, in isolation from wider Government policy and practice, the remuneration rates established by the Minister for a particular body as proposed.

The biggest concern is precedent and where it would stop in respect of other bodies and whether the remuneration of the board members of every public board and body would be established by the sectoral committees within the Houses of the Oireachtas. The committee could very well be ground to a halt. It is the reserve of the Minister on that basis. It is also noted that section 17(8) states: " In the performance of his or her duties under this section, the chief executive shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy." Accordingly, it would appear incongruous for the committee to review remuneration rates established as part of Government pay policy without having the benefit of the background, reasons, context and policy. I do not disagree with what the Deputy is trying to do but not only would it set a precedent for other boards but it could establish a precedent for difficulties or perceived difficulties in the wider public sector. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment but I completely accept the tenet of what the Deputy is trying to do.

David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened to the Minister of State's response and will make one additional point before withdrawing the amendment, reserving the right to resubmit it on Report Stage. The chief executive would have leeway and in this amendment we are trying to limit that leeway because we do not want to see someone appearing before this committee for exceeding public sector pay or allowances in respect of salary caps. We have seen instances of this. We want to make sure there is oversight beyond the Minister, by a sectoral committee, and this committee would be the place for that. It seems prudent that this committee would have some level of scrutiny in advance and not be looking back when there is a problem.

I accept what the Minister of State says about it setting a precedent for other areas. Maybe we need to consider how this issue is dealt with in its entirety because the Minister of State accepts there have been problems in this area.

Given the Minister of State has said he is not in a position to accept the amendment, I have no choice but to withdraw it. However, I will give the matter more consideration and may resubmit the amendment on Report Stage.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 22, after line 13, to insert the following:“Sharing of data

35. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 or any other enactment, the data controller of Oifig an Ard-Chláraitheora (the first-named person) shall provide to the data controller of the Office such of the following certificates capable of being produced by the first-named person as may be requested by the data controller of the Office, if the first-named person is satisfied that the certificate will be used for a relevant purpose only—

(a) a birth certificate relating to a child of a member of staff of a public service body,

(b) a marriage certificate relating to a member of staff of a public service body,

(c) a death certificate relating to a member of staff of a public service body.

(2) Any provision of documents for the purposes of subsection (1) shall go no further than is reasonably necessary for the attainment of the relevant purpose.

(3) The data controller of Oifig an Ard-Chláraitheora may refuse a request under subsection (1) if he or she is satisfied that it would be unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the fundamental rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject.

(4) In this section—

“data controller” has the same meaning as it has in the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003;

“data subject” has the same meaning as it has in the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003;

“member of staff” in subsection (1) and in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant purpose” includes former member of staff;

“relevant purpose” means, in relation to a public service body in respect of which an order under section 9(1) is in force, any of the following purposes—

(a) verification of entitlement of a member of staff of the public service body to a superannuation payment,

(b) verification of entitlement of a member of staff of the public service body to parental leave (within the meaning of the Parental Leave Acts 1998 and 2006),

(c) verification of entitlement of a member of staff of the public service body to paternity leave (within the meaning of the Paternity Leave and Benefit Act 2016),

(d) verification of entitlement of a person as the surviving spouse or child, or beneficiary of the estate, of a deceased member of staff of the public service

body.”.

In summary, this provision, which refers to the birth, death and marriage certificates held in the general register, will allow the office to request and receive limited information contained on the general register. This arrangement will greatly assist in the processing of certain cases, such as parental leave. In order to process statutory and contractual entitlements such as parental leave, pension payments, survivor's pension and so forth, the NSSO is required to view and verify certain documents such as birth, death or marriage certificates relating to its customers, which would be normal practice. Currently, the processes within the NSSO mean the original, long versions of forms must be sent to the office for verification before these important entitlements can be granted. Many process delays occur when the customer fails or is unable to submit such forms on time, meaning that vital payments are sometimes delayed. The protection of sensitive data such as that contained on these forms is obviously of utmost concern and consideration to the NSSO. The customer will always be kept aware of any process before anything is done with the documentation. This is a workable element of the legislation and it is required in order for people to access their entitlements. The amendment is technical in nature.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 24, after line 11, to insert the following:“41. The National Shared Services Office.”.