Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy has a view that with five Secretaries General around the table, nobody can open his or her mouth. However, the Secretaries General bring the input of their departmental work to the table. There are other members of the NESC, independent of these, who are quite capable of putting across their own points of view. Out of that an accurate picture emerges. Without some sort of departmental input, we might not obtain an accurate analysis. As always in such cases, there is a requirement to know what is happening in an operational sense and a requirement to know what needs to be done arising from this and what changes should be recommended.

There may be an idea that there is a repository of wisdom outside the public service and that these people can come in and tell the public service how it should be run - or, alternatively, that the monopoly of wisdom is within the public service and people outside do not know what they are talking about - but neither of these is true. This is not the best way to provide a policy analysis. We need a rigorous objective and challenging analysis, but we also need an input that explains the present situation and the constraints. Which service delivery mechanisms are causing problems and where are there pressures on services? How can this be changed? How are Departments interacting with each other? How do we better co-ordinate the governmental system? There is a fair amount of institutional memory and expertise to be brought to the table to deal with all of this.

In terms of portraying people as too compliant or too indifferent because of the presence of certain others, neither point of view is correct. One might ask whether less is better. I do not know the answer but there is a reason for their involvement and NESC has always been able to come forward with substantive, balanced and informed reports. The presence of people who are of the system and those who come from outside it probably contributes to an analysis of where change is necessary and, more importantly, how it can be achieved.

In regard to grant-in-aid and the retention of NESDO, there was no substantive increase over and above the cost of NESC. Under the legislation, it will be possible in the future to create other bodies within this framework if the Government so decides. The retention of the framework does not incur substantive costs and it is available to ensure co-ordination in the event of other bodies being required. We believe it is prudent to leave it in place under the legislation given that there are no substantive additional costs beyond those of NESC itself.

The Department Estimate for 2010 in respect of these activities is €3.854 million. This represents a decrease of €1.205 million over the 2009 Estimate. The savings on the non-pay side have arisen mainly as a result of savings on rent. The dissolution of the forum and the NCPP has made it possible to reduce the accommodation required. Additional savings will arise in 2010 as a result of this decision but these are largely offset by once-off establishment costs for the enlarged NESC. However, further savings are likely to be made from efficiency improvements in the years ahead as the decision is implemented. Overall, NESDO employs 20.4 whole time equivalent staff, broken into areas including the director, various social policy analysts and senior economists. The existing employees of the forum and the NCPP have been given the option of transferring to NESC, which will maintain certain aspects of their work programmes.

See this speech in context