Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of questions about and comments on the Estimates. I join others in saying that it is disappointing that the senior Minister has not seen fit to turn up for this debate in order to account for spending within his Department. This session has been scheduled for some time. It is disrespectful to the House and to Opposition spokespersons that he is not present for the scheduled debate.

I want to raise an issue that has come to the fore recently, namely, the role of the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the health budget oversight group. Questions have been asked of the Secretary General about spending for the purposes of testing and tracing but he was reluctant, and in fact refused, to answer questions on that matter. I find it quite difficult to understand why that was the case. Perhaps one of the Ministers of State could explain. There are questions about the overall budget for the testing and tracing regime. A figure of €206 million was sanctioned. To date, €47 million has been spent. There is an estimated total spend this year of €414 million. Given that we are into the seventh month of the year, maybe somebody could explain why there is such wide variation in those figures and why the Secretary General has not responded to questions on the matter.

On the decision to appoint three super junior Ministers and the additional Estimate that is required to top up their salaries, can either of the Ministers of State provide a justification for that top-up? It is very hard to understand. There might be an argument in a three-party coalition for somebody from each party to attend Cabinet. What is the rationale or justification, though, for a top-up on what is already quite a generous salary?

The overall 2020 budget allocation was 22% less than last year's Estimate because of the establishment of the OGCIO.

Excluding a fall due to the office being established, the Department's programme expenditure increased by €1.1 million. My question relates to the office of the Government Chief Information officer. This is a new Vote which has been established. It is worth €21.7 million, which accounts for the 28% reduction in the Department's main Vote. What is the exact purpose of this office? Why was it established as a separate office? Could it not have operated as a unit in the Department? Are there additional expenses associated with establishing it as an office? What are the main projects that it will concentrate on?

The public service innovation fund is another new subhead. It receives €1 million, double the allocation of last year. There is a good argument for such a fund. The Civil Service is often criticised for not being sufficiently innovative and we need to bring new thinking and new approaches across the Civil Service. Last year the fund was very highly oversubscribed, to the tune of 136 projects requesting nearly €7 million across the public service, and we see the same has happened again this year. Does the Minister of State accept that the figure is an underestimation of the level of funding needed if we are serious about innovation across the service? It strikes me as tokenism. Was there any attempt to measure the demand for such a budget? Does the Minister of State accept that we should put our money where our mouth is to a far greater extent to encourage that fresh thinking and innovation?

The construction innovation support is a new subhead to encourage innovation and increase productivity in the construction sector. There seems to be a good argument for that. We should encourage innovation across the sectors. The fund's purpose is to foster digital leadership and culture change, to create digital standards, encourage digital education and training and introduce digital procurement. Why was only the construction sector selected for this? What was the basis for this decision?

I will stop there and ask if the Ministers of State can answer.

See this speech in context