Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he intends to review non-commercial State agency expenditure. [35187/11]

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

The comprehensive review of expenditure which has been carried out across all Departments in recent months has carefully examined all areas of Exchequer spending, including the funding provided by Departments to the non-commercial State bodies that operate under their aegis. The comprehensive review of expenditure has been finalised and it is now informing the decisions that the Government is taking in the context of deciding the Estimates for next year and the years beyond.

As a further part of the Government's reform plans, today I announced the Government's new target for further reductions in public sector numbers in the coming years. We are now in the process of determining new staffing ceilings for each of the public services and these will be announced in the first week in December as part of the budget and Estimates. A revised employment control framework, ECF, will be published at that time setting out the staff numbers ceiling for each Vote area, thus encompassing the individual Departments and their non-commercial agencies.

In respect of State agencies, the Deputy will be aware that today I announced the Government's plans to reduce the number of such bodies. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to reform and the pursuit of efficiencies by rationalising 48 bodies by the end of 2012 and by nominating a further 46 bodies for critical review by the end of June 2012. This radical streamlining of State bodiesis a key deliverable of the Government's reform programme and will lead to a more transparent, accountable and efficient public service.

The Government has also decided to: introduce "sunset clauses" when new bodies are created which will ensure that a new body will cease to exist after a predetermined date unless its mandate is specifically renewed; ensure that Departments regularly review the business case for all significant State bodies; and require that robust service level agreements are put in place as a matter of urgency by each Department with each of its State bodies. The overriding imperative must remain the absolute requirement to achieve major savings in all areas of expenditure and to reduce staff numbers and administrative overheads. This underscores the need to ensure that public services delivered by State bodies are done in the most cost-effective manner possible.

Finally, the issue of shared services, which has the potential to transform the cost effectiveness of State bodies, is also being examined by my Department and I hope to bring proposals to Government shortly.

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

I thank the Minister for confirming in the previous answer that the decision on the ESB, whatever the percentage, was that of the Government alone and not the troika. I have read the Minister's report. Is the Minister seeking to introduce a cutback in terms of fees for board members for these State agencies?

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

Is the Deputy referring to the stipend they get for being board members?

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

Yes. The Minister makes a general argument about increased efficiencies and cost savings but he has not detailed these anywhere. I refer, for instance, to one of the decisions made, that is, the case of the Ombudsman for Children. I wonder at the wisdom of this given how central, sensitive and successful the office has been. Is it wise to amalgamate even back office functions with another agency?

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

Fees for board members have already been reduced. The Deputy is probably aware of the controversy whereby I have also issued a directive to the effect that no public servant appointed to a board may be paid a fee. The idea of one person, one fee and one payment should exist.

With regard to the amalgamation it seems the back office supports for the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children will do no damage to the independence or robustness of the latter office. It will simply make it more efficient and streamline the services. It is similar to several other amalgamations and shared services arrangements and serves as a driver for change and reform. We should be open to change and not simply think that something must have its own edifice. Government Department should have shared human resources management, pensions arrangements and pay. We do not need to duplicate such things.

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

I agree with the Minister's last points. Did he consult with the Ombudsman for children in respect of the amalgamation?

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

I did not.

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

Did the Department?

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

We did not go through the possibility with every agency. I examined the possible amalgamations and they were fed out to Departments and observations were taken in. In each area where there is an amalgamation, a subsumption or abolition proposed, the views of the parent Department would have been taken into account.

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

Only limited consultation with the actual agencies took place.

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

I do not know the extent to which the Department consulted with them.

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

Does the Minister not think that is a flaw? The Minister is standing over this report. He has provided a list of amalgamations and so on. No rationale is provided in the report. I am concerned that the Minister does not have, in his headed paper, an analysis and confirmation that a minimum of consultation happened with the agencies in question. I am surprised he would stand over the report if consultation did not take place.

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

The Deputy would love to lead me into an area but I will not allow her to do that. To put it bluntly, this is about efficiencies and savings. One does not need to consult with every agency to determine if the State can get better back office support by amalgamating human resources management elsewhere. I did not ask every Department if it was willing to have a common pay and pensions system. Back office support does not require consultation. The independence of the offices concerned will be fully vindicated. The process of implementation will have to involve detailed consultation with all of the bodies and individuals concerned.