Mr. Robert Watt:

I thank the Chairman. I am joined by Ms Oonagh Buckley, Mr. James Farrell, Mr. Paul Quinn, Mr. Dermot Nolan, Ms Helen Codd and Ms Hilary Murphy Fagan.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

I thank the Chairman. As a result of the number of items on the schedule today, I propose to outline very briefly the results of the four 2014 appropriation accounts before summarising the key points of the four reports. I should say at the outset that I have issued clear audit opinions for each of the accounts.

On Vote 11, the 2014 appropriation account for the Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform records gross expenditure totalling €36.8 million divided across two programme areas. The programme of activities relating to public service management and reform accounted for 54% of the expenditure, while the programme comprehending the management of the system of public expenditure accounted for 46%. At the end of the year, the Department had underspent by €3.8 million, or just under 10% of its gross Estimate provision. That amount was accordingly liable for surrender back to the Exchequer.

Vote 12 presents the expenditure on Civil Service and prison officer pensions. Pension payments for other public servants are charged to other votes, including those for education, the HSE, An Garda Síochána and Army pensions. The gross spend on Vote 12 in 2014 amounted to €474 million, which was up 10.8% compared with 2013. Appropriations-in-aid, mainly arising from employee pension contributions, amounted to €105 million in 2014, which represented a year-on-year increase of almost 18%. A Supplementary Estimate amounting to a net €22.25 million was provided for the Vote in 2014. At the end of the year, a surplus of €16 million was liable for surrender. The Department of Finance administers the pension payments charged to Vote 12. The associated administration costs are borne in Vote 7 - Office of the Minister for Finance. Costs of policy formulation relating to public service pensions are borne in Vote 11 - Office of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The absence of administration costs is reflected in the format of the appropriation account for Vote 12.

The 2014 appropriation account for shared services records gross expenditure totalling €23.2 million. This mainly comprises €13.2 million spent on activities related to PeoplePoint which handles HR activities centrally; €7.6 million spent on payroll shared services; and €1.6 million on other shared services projects, including a shared financial management system project. Vote expenditure in the year was significantly less than provided for in the Estimate mainly because of delays in recruitment and progressing projects. Overall, there was a net underspend of €10.3 million or approximately one third relative to the Estimate.

Vote 41, Office of Government Procurement, was a new Vote in 2014. On its establishment, the office took over the activities of the former National Procurement Service in the OPW and those of the former national public procurement policy unit in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The Vote Estimate provided for gross expenditure by the Office of Government Procurement totalling €12.8 million in 2014. The outturn was €6.4 million. After a deferred surrender of €125,000, the amount due for surrender was €6.1 million. Note 3 explains that the underspend in the year arose from slower than anticipated recruitment of staff, with knock-on effects in other areas of planned expenditure, including certain planned projects.

Turning to the chapters, Chapter 4 is a standard report that aims to consolidate and summarise Vote expenditure for 2014 and to demonstrate medium to long-term trends. Gross voted expenditure across all Votes in 2014 was €46 billion. This represents a cumulative reduction of almost 13% since 2010. The report also compares net Vote expenditure with the original budget allocations and identifies those that were granted additional funding by way of Supplementary Estimates. Figure 4.5 in the chapter indicates that three Votes each required Supplementary Estimates every year from 2010 to 2014, inclusive. They were the Votes for the HSE, An Garda Síochána and Army pensions. There were Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in each of the last three years.

In 2014 grant funding issued from Votes amounted to a total of over €11 billion. Chapter 5 describes significant changes made by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to the framework for the control and management of such grant funding. Previous reports from my office and the committee identified certain weaknesses in these arrangements. In particular, the special report on the national health and local authority levy fund made a number of recommendations for improvements in grant control and accountability arrangements. The revised control framework was set out in Department Circular 13/2014 and took effect from January 2015. The revised arrangements introduce a number of additional requirements for both funding bodies and those in receipt of grant funds. These measures should increase the transparency and accountability arrangements for grants and address the identified weaknesses. Meeting the new or extended requirements may present a significant challenge to both funding bodies and grant recipient bodies. The exercise of judgment will be required to ensure the requirements are applied in a proportionate way, taking account of the size and capacity of the grant recipient and the scale of the grant involved. Compliance with the new requirements will be examined during the course of the 2015 audits of Departments and agencies.

Chapter 6 is a technical report, prepared to meet a specific requirement of the CSO for audited accrual-based payroll information for national accounts purposes. Members will be aware that appropriation accounts are prepared on a cash basis and record transactions when payment is made or income is received. Accordingly, public service staff pay costs and payments to pensioners are recognised in the appropriation accounts at the point of payment. Payments are made either weekly, fortnightly or monthly, as appropriate, and normally in arrears. Most years there are 26 fortnightly payroll runs and 52 weekly runs. However, because the number of days covered by pay periods does not exactly match the number of days in the calendar year, an accrual element builds up over time. There is an additional pay period every ten to 11 years for fortnightly paid staff and every five to six years for weekly paid staff. This results in spikes in pay expenditure in the appropriation accounts in years when there are extra pay days. I should perhaps point out, to allay concerns, that no one receives any extra pay beyond his or her annual salary as a result. This is purely an accounting and a timing issue.

Payroll accrual information submitted by Departments with the appropriation account was audited as part of the statutory audit of the accounts. By agreement with the Department, we have presented the information in the annex to this report in the format specified by the CSO. The table also includes information on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission which does not have a Vote. Although the Commission is funded directly from the Exchequer, it prepares its financial statements in the appropriation account format used for voted expenditure.

Chapter 7 was undertaken in the light of the significant changes implemented as a result of the National Lottery Act 2013. It aims to outline the process used to distribute the proceeds of the national lottery among the good causes specified in the Act. It also explains how the application of the funding is accounted for in the appropriation accounts. Annex 1 of the report summaries the funds flow. Exchequer funds totalling €217 million were provided to fund a range of designated national lottery supported programmes that fitted within the "good causes" categories. The finance accounts show that a total of €178 million was paid from the national lottery fund to the Exchequer in 2014. For 2014, we can, therefore, establish that the national lottery provided 82% of the funding applied across national lottery supported programmes. However, because national lottery funding is not formally allocated on a subhead or programme basis, the percentage national lottery funding level cannot be identified at a programme level.

The report also outlines the receipt into the Exchequer in 2014 of a licence fee totalling €405 million for the operation of the national lottery over a 20 year period, following a competitive tendering process.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for giving me the opportunity to make a short opening statement. I propose to set out the Department's strategic objectives and our performance in meeting these objectives in the past few years.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has two broad strategic objectives: to support economic and social progress by managing public expenditure on a long-term, sustainable basis; and to introduce and support reform of the civil and public service, ensuring public administration and governance structures are citizen-focused, efficient and cost-effective. Linking these two objectives is an overarching focus on value for money for the taxpayer. Achieving value for money in how public services are delivered is central to the work of the Department and a key concern for the committee.

The Department's key function, since it was established, has been the control of public expenditure. As the committee will be aware, Ireland has met its deficit target in each of the years since the Department's inception and we are on track to do so again this year. We have sought to do so by shifting resources to where they are needed most and protect the most vulnerable in society. Much of our capacity to do this has arisen directly from the sacrifices made by public servants in their terms of employment.

As we return to more normal times, our function will not be to determine the level of spending other than to advise the Government on what we believe is appropriate but to ensure broad budgetary targets are met and that expenditure delivers the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Many of the reforms we have put in place during the recession years will continue to bear fruit as the economy continues to grow. What are these reforms? First, we are seeking to remove the duplication of services and apply common standards. The provision of HR functionality by a myriad of Departments is more expensive and feeds into the silo-driven nature of government. Shared services is an obvious example of our response to this challenge, as are public service-wide pay agreements, sick leave and annual leave reform and the single pension scheme. The Civil Service Management Board and the Accountability Board are deliberate attempts to break down a culture that has evolved over many years. One of its first tasks will be to see how Departments co-operate better on shared tasks. This is ultimately not only about costs, although that is important, but also about improving the range of data available to the Government to enable it to make more effective decisions.

Second, we are seeking to encourage the development of policy-making on a more open and considered basis. Examples on which I will touch include more measurement of outcomes, more varied commissioning models, more use of specialists, an aggressive attitude to open data and reform of the budgetary process. Similarly, we are trying to broaden recruitment channels into the civil and public service.

We have enacted a series of Bills aimed at opening up our system. Freedom of information legislation has been restored and is being used more extensively. In the next year we will see the first impacts of the lobbying legislation.

The banking inquiry is operating under the terms of the Oireachtas inquiries Act. The Ombudsman has increased powers and is set to see his powers extended further into the health arenas. Whistleblowers now have a common framework under which to report and public bodies have been offered standardised procedures on how to proceed. While we have come a long way, the Department recognises that we have further to go.

Finally, and I think this is important, we are opposed to inertia. Through our reform and delivery office we act as the prodders of reform in other Departments and across the system. Our system has been under extreme pressure in recent years. In the private sector, activity slows when recession hits while in the public sector demand increases. I think in time our response to the crisis will be seen to have been particularly effective but it has undoubtedly been difficult to endure. We cannot go back to the old ways of doing things and must continue to innovate, change and reform. These tasks will become particularly challenging as we exit the excessive deficit arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and move to the preventative arm in 2016.

I stress for the committee the broad budgetary context we have experienced in recent years as it is the appropriate backdrop to discuss the reforms we have introduced. In 2014, gross voted expenditure was €54 billion. This is a reduction of more than €9 billion from the peak in 2009. Current expenditure over the period was reduced by almost 10% and capital expenditure was reduced by half. By identifying savings, driving efficiencies and working with Departments to better manage their cost bases, the Department has made a very significant contribution to the improved fiscal environment and enhanced value for money.

One source of significant Exchequer savings was in the area of public sector pay. As a result of financial emergency legislation, savings in the public sector pay and pensions bill amounted to €2.2 billion annually. Ms Oonagh Buckley, who is in attendance, was very involved in cutting the pay of her colleagues. She is very popular.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is very popular with them.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Ms Buckley's team has been involved in a series of reforms over the period. This year, the Government decided to begin to unwind some of these measures under the Lansdowne Road agreement. The agreement will provide for a continuation of enhanced productivity measures while securing an industrial relations framework that will foster and support industrial peace. Other reforms worth mentioning include the new public service sick leave scheme introduced to reduce the cost and incidence of sick leave for the public service. I know the committee debated the scheme previously. The scheme has had an immediate and positive impact. Approximately 260,000 extra days were worked by public servants in 2014 in comparison with 2013, saving an estimated €51.5 million. We hope to see further savings from the implementation of the scheme over the next few years.

Between 2008 and the end of 2014, the number of staff working in the public service was reduced by 10%. As a result our success on expenditure consolidation and driving public service reforms, we can now consider on a strategic basis the allocation of extra staff to critical public services. Since 2014, there has been increased staffing in the following areas. We have appointed an additional 3,000 teachers and more than 1,300 new special needs assistants. The HSE has hired 1,000 nurses and there will be an increase in the number of gardaí. Without public service reform and the savings it produced, including those underpinned by agreements negotiated with staff, it would have been impossible to increase staff levels in these critical areas.

The Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, has introduced a number of significant reforms to ensure taxpayer money is allocated to the maximum benefit of society. The wide-ranging reforms to the budgetary architecture support the efficient use of public funds to deliver effective services for citizens. The implementation of a medium-term budgetary framework and the introduction of comprehensive reviews of public expenditure allow for greater debate about key expenditure challenges. The revised public spending code, which sets out the economic appraisal requirements for new current and capital expenditure proposals, brings together in one place all the elements of the value for money framework. Departments and agencies proposing expenditure are responsible for undertaking the required appraisal for each new spending proposal or project. The public spending code provides that appraisals and detailed assessments should be carried out before Exchequer resources are committed. In July 2015, the Government agreed a new three-year value for money review programme for each Department. Under the programme, Departments will review expenditure across a number of programme areas. This programme, which is reviewing 40 topics, is aligned with the multi-annual budgetary cycle and the comprehensive review of expenditure process.

The Oireachtas and its committees play a central role in overseeing expenditure of State resources. Last week the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission launched an OECD report, Review of Budget Oversight by Parliament: Ireland. The report takes account of the parliamentary and budgetary environment within which we all operate. Its recommendations have the potential to engender more meaningful and constructive dialogue around the efficient and effective use of public resources and the role of the Oireachtas in overseeing these issues. This is a key concern of this committee. While the OECD's report is of course a matter for the Oireachtas and the Executive, the Civil Service is ready to assist in any way we can in augmenting Oireachtas oversight of the Irish budgetary process.

Of critical importance to implementing budgetary and expenditure management reform is building the institutional capacity to do so. Our Department has been enhancing capability within the public service and Civil Service to appraise, evaluate and monitor public expenditure effectively, ensuring the focus remains on value for money. Of particular note is the establishment of the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES. IGEES is an integrated cross-Government service which enhances the role of economics and value for money analysis in public policy-making. IGEES members have a particular skill set which has improved the analytical capacity of the Civil Service. They operate in designated economic evaluation units and engage widely with other Departments. Their expertise further strengthens the focus on evidence-based policy-making within the public service.

The effective use of data is also critical to a more integrated and efficient public service. The publication of official non-personal data in open format has the potential for significant economic, social and political impact. Our open data initiative aims to enhance the value and utility of public service data. Such data can be shared within and between public bodies and with the public as a whole. Open data can become the raw material to drive more effective decision-making and efficient service delivery within public and private bodies. It can spur economic activity in the development of new products and services and empower citizens to take an active role in improving their communities. This is an area where we will strive to do more over the next few years. It has enormous potential to improve the operation of the system.

A better trained, more integrated and more effective Civil Service will support better delivery of services and a better return to the taxpayer. Published in October 2014, the Civil Service renewal plan sets out a vision and three-year action plan to achieve it. It outlines practical actions that will create a more unified, professional, responsive and accountable Civil Service. Since its publication, significant progress has been made. An accountability board has been established to oversee Civil Service performance and develop a better framework for holding senior civil servants to account for performance. A Civil Service management board has been established to create a more integrated and cohesive whole-of-Government executive management team. It is a great surprise that before now senior leaders across the Civil Service did not meet regularly to consider the strategic and delivery issues faced by the system. There is now a performance review process for Secretaries General to ensure high standards are maintained. Open recruitment campaigns have been held for positions across different grades for the first time. This will ensure there is a consistent stream of talented professionals with different backgrounds, experiences and capacities entering the Civil Service at every level. The new structures are helping to strengthen accountability and performance by introducing greater oversight of delivery across the Civil Service.

Progress has also being made in other actions in the plan. This week we published a corporate governance standard for the Civil Service. This is the first time that such a standard has been produced. It will set out how each Department and office does its work and operates to deliver on its mandate and functions. To bring greater individual accountability, we will also ensure the statutory official assignment of responsibilities in each Department down to the level of principal officer are publicly available. Effective leadership is crucial to deliver Civil Service and public service reform. The senior public service has been established, initially within the Civil Service, to support high performance and a more integrated approach to leadership development at senior levels. It supports executive coaching and provides for mobility at senior levels in the Civil Service.

Shared services is one of the largest cross-cutting change programme the Civil Service has ever introduced. The national shared services office, NSSO, in our Department is responsible for establishing and providing shared services to the Civil Service and, as part of its wider leadership role, for setting standards for shared services in other public service sectors. Earlier this year, the Government approved the drafting of a Bill to establish the NSSO as a separate Civil Service office. Work on the Bill is being advanced with the Office of the Attorney General. I thank Ms Hilary Murphy Fagan and all her staff for their hard work in bringing this about.

Established in March 2013, PeoplePoint provides HR and pensions administration services for 35 organisations with approximately 30,000 employees. By the end of next year, it will be fully established and serve 33,500 employees across 40 departments. The payroll shared service centre is in three locations and administers payroll for 34 organisations and 43,000 employees and pensioners.

This will rise to 80,000 by the end of this year. In addition, the evaluation of tenders for a single financial management solution for the Civil Service is now nearing completion, and we expect to return to the Government shortly to proceed to implementation. Strong oversight and governance frameworks exist to oversee and monitor the performance of these centres against service level targets and customer satisfaction. Cost savings and significant improvements in service delivery in PeoplePoint have been made throughout this year and we are striving to improve service delivery for all our clients.

ICT has a critical and increasing role in delivering better public services. Earlier this year, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer published the new public service ICT strategy. The strategy will create a new model for ICT delivery. The central aim of the strategy is to deliver better value for money by creating efficiencies through integration, consolidation and data sharing. The strategy will ensure ICT infrastructure and systems are shared across the Civil Service and public service, achieving greater efficiencies in the use of resources.

Progress has also continued on introducing more external delivery of services. Examples include the use of private call centres for administration of the water conservation grant and local property tax. These contracts leverage private sector expertise and innovation to deliver cost savings and better services for citizens. JobPath, the new employment activation programme, also uses private sector expertise to assist the long-term unemployed back into the labour force. There is much more scope to use the external delivery of service in other areas of administration and service.

The Department is working with other Departments on the issue of commissioning. The commissioning model will embody a more strategic approach to the delivery of services by the community and voluntary sector than the traditional block grant funding model. This model aims to assess and identify the needs of a population and release funding in return for achieving the identified outcomes on foot of evidence-based evaluations.

Another example of how the Department is driving a culture of value for money is the issue of Government grants, which I know is the subject of a separate chapter in the most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In September 2014, the Department issued a new circular setting out a revised framework for management and accountability arrangements for grants. The overarching principle of the new circular is that there should be transparency and accountability in the management of public money. There is also a new statement of principles for grantees. The statement outlines four principles that apply to those in receipt of grant funding, namely, clarity, fairness, governance and value for money.

A related initiative has been the establishment of Benefacts. This will provide a single repository of regulatory data on the entire not-for-profit sector. The sector is estimated to encompass 20,000 entities which receive €4.4 billion in Government funding annually. The objectives of Benefacts are to deliver a single view of all not-for-profit entities in Ireland, to facilitate better decision-making in the Government’s funding of the sector and to rebuild donor confidence and provide for increased investment in the sector.

A key aspect of the reform agenda has been the area of public procurement. Over many years concerns have been raised in reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General about weak procurement practices and we have sought to address them. The Office of Government Procurement, OGP, now procures common goods and services across the sector. The procurement reform programme is gaining increasing traction in delivering a more joined-up approach for procurement. The OGP is progressively putting in place sectoral or whole-of-Government arrangements in areas such as professional services, ICT, facilities, travel and HR services.

Some expenditure areas, such as legal costs and insurance, have never been procured on a whole-of-Government basis. For the first time, the OGP is looking at such services across the public service and is putting in place professional commercial arrangements that leverage scale, bring consistency and manage risk. The OGP is also committed to ensuring SMEs are fully engaged with public sector procurement. In March this year, the office produced a detailed analysis of non-pay expenditure in the public service, which was the first of its kind. The findings indicated that 66% of the State's procurement was with the SME sector. I commend Mr. Paul Quinn and his team on all their hard work in the delivery of this very extensive and ambitious programme of change.

Value for money is also important in our management of the State’s property portfolio. The OPW led the development and implementation of the property asset management delivery plan. Significant progress has been achieved in areas such as intra-State property transactions, communications and the Civil Service estate. More work is required, so we will continue to support the OPW in driving the implementation of the plan as part of the Government’s overall reform programme.

I have set out some of the changes the Department has introduced to improve the effectiveness of public spending. Of course, given total voted spend of more than €55 billion, it is inevitable that there will be errors, omissions and inefficiencies which do not meet the high standards we are setting. We are dealing in a world of uncertainty and increasing complexity. However, it is critical that we continue with and improve on these reforms. Specifically, we need to embed a very strong value for money culture which does not tolerate outdated practices or inertia. Achieving this will require a significant improvement in our leadership capacity. This is, to my mind, the single most important challenge we face.

I will now turn to some specific items on the agenda today. With regard to chapter 4, vote accounting and budget management, since the Department was established, significant progress has been made in reducing the fiscal deficit and bringing stability to the public finances. In 2011, the budget deficit stood at 12.5% of GDP. This year it will be below 2.1%. In 2016, it is forecast to reduce further to 1.2%. The Department’s two objectives of managing public expenditure and driving reform have made a major contribution to this improved fiscal environment. In 2014, gross voted spend amounted to €54.1 billion, which is €1.1 billion or 2.1%, ahead of profile. In net terms, net voted expenditure amounted to €42.2 billion in 2014 and was €1.1 billion or 2.6% ahead of profile. It is worth noting that nine of the 16 ministerial Vote groups were at or below profile. Ministerial Vote groups requiring Supplementary Estimates were in most instances able to obtain savings elsewhere from within the Vote groups to offset partially the Supplementary Estimate.

Turning to the Department's own Vote, the Estimate for 2014 was set at €35.9 million, a slight increase on 2013 levels. This reflects the addition of funds to provide for the establishment of the Office of the National Lottery Regulator and to provide for a widening of responsibilities in the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. The audited surplus to be surrendered in 2014 was €3.8 million. The surplus mainly arose due to lower than expected progress on recruitment as set out in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and spend on North-South projects.

On Vote 12, Superannuation and Retired Allowances, the 2014 appropriation accounts for the Vote show a net outturn of €368.7 million compared with an Estimate plus Supplementary Estimate of €384.8 million, giving a surplus of €16.1 million. The surplus arose due to the timing of receipts from the single public service pension scheme.

Turning to Vote 18, Shared Services, the 2014 Estimate of €30.6 million represents a net increase of €9.6 million compared with the 2013 Estimate. This increase is largely driven by the migration of existing payroll functions from originating Departments to the centre. The net outturn for 2014 was €20.3 million, giving a surplus to surrender of approximately €10 million. The underspend primarily arose because of later than anticipated transitioning of staff to PeoplePoint and payroll.

With regard to Vote 41, Office of Government Procurement, the Estimate for 2014 was set at €12.4 million. The outturn was €6.2 million, leaving a surplus to be surrendered of €6.3 million. This surplus arose mainly due to lower than anticipated recruitment, as only two thirds of expected staff were on board at the end of 2014, and knock-on savings in non-pay.

I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the staff of the Department for all their hard work. Since 2011, the Department has achieved much, none of which would have been possible without the commitment and expertise of the staff. As the country enters the next phase of our recovery, the Department will continue to make a contribution to public policy, budgetary management and the management and reform of the public service. I look forward to working with the committee on these issues in the future. I am aware this is likely to be our last meeting before the general election and I wish the members all the best in the upcoming contest.

Mr. Robert Watt:

One never knows how things will work out.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No comment.

Mr. Robert Watt:

For every policy decision which has a cost implication a memorandum for government is brought and within this is an estimate of the costs involved over a number of years. This is set out and the Department comments on it with regard to resources available within the Vote to fund it and on whether we believe the cost estimates. This is the standard approach. To answer the Chairman's question, I am not exactly sure on the detail but I will check and come back to him. The standard practice is the Department comes up with an estimate based on the likely work, on which the Government offers a view, and as part of the discussion we give an assessment on whether we think it is reasonable.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I can come back to the Chairman this afternoon on what was the original estimate. I believe it was in the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach. We can establish the original estimate.

Mr. Robert Watt:

In such a case it is very difficult to anticipate the amount of work involved and the amount of activity, but we would give a view on whether the cost estimate is robust and reasonable. It is the parent Department's responsibility to state what it believes is the likely work and the likely cost and we give a view on this. As the Chairman knows, there is much uncertainty about what inquiries and investigations are likely to discover and their level of activity, so there is more uncertainty about budget estimation than in other areas of activity. We can certainly come back to the Chairman on what was the original estimate.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

If we look back at every inquiry and commission of investigation we have ever undertaken, the work involved has been multiples of what was expected and the costs have been way in excess of what was anticipated at the time they were established. Looking back over the past 15 or 20 years, we have had many inquiries and tribunals and this has been the trend. The Comptroller and Auditor General has examined this in other cases in the past.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the same point, and I was going to mention this later, when it comes to the commission of investigation into the IBRC the point the Chairman makes is valid because in recent days we have found that the estimate for how long it will take could be approximately eight years. Did the Department know this when it put its memo to Cabinet. What was the length of time for which the Department had financially estimated?

Mr. Robert Watt:

In this case, it was the Department of Finance which put forward the memo stating what it thought the inquiry would involve and an estimate, and we then had an opportunity to comment on it. In this case it is very difficult for the Department of Finance to anticipate the amount of work involved.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely the Chairman has made a fair point.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, he has.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are now finding out, after the fact, based on what the person leading the commission of investigation has said, that it could take eight years. Was this even closely factored in when it came to the memo? At how much was it estimated?

Mr. Robert Watt:

I would have to look at the original decision. I cannot recall exactly what the proposal was at the time. I do not think anybody envisaged it would take eight years. I do not think anybody envisaged that type of timescale, but I cannot recall exactly what the Department of Finance said about how long it would take or the costs.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Watt take the point-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, I do.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----about reasonable due diligence-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----based on his opening statement and the analysis he pointed to which needs to be made when Exchequer funding is spent that surely we are doing things after the fact here? Everybody was amazed by the eight year projection, and it seems to me that in the initial analysis this was not well-known at Cabinet, or there might have been second guessing with regard to this in the first place.

Mr. Robert Watt:

There is a wider policy issue on which I will not comment. There is a long history of inquiries and tribunals which have taken longer and cost a lot more than what was anticipated.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have learned nothing.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is a policy issue so I cannot comment on it.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is, and that is fair enough, but it seems to me if we are making a decision without knowing fully how long something will reasonably take it defeats the process from day one. This is the point Mr. Watt made in his opening statement. We have a very recent example that belies and makes a mockery of what we already know about how long these things take and the type of the overruns we have dealt with historically in this committee. We are still dealing with tribunals. Every time the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government comes before the committee we ask how much the bill is now. We are speaking about things which have taken decades. I understand from where Mr. Watt is coming, and the point the Chairman is making is very relevant. I understand the analysis and that a memo goes to Cabinet, but do we undertake a proper analysis on how long an inquiry will take and how much it will cost? I still think the answer is no.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I have a few comments. On the Comptroller and Auditor General, local government and the relationship between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the local government auditor, I have expressed my views in the past that our Department has an open mind about whether both should be amalgamated. I have stated this previously and I believe the Chairman and I are in broad agreement here. Certainly, our Department would be supportive of that and have been in the past. We know the Comptroller and Auditor General and this process have a strong impact in terms of value for money and ensuring that Departments account for money and are called to account before this committee. This is very powerful and if we believe this could have an impact on local government expenditure, we certainly would not object to that. I have supported it in the past and my view has not changed in this regard.

The Chairman raised some issues about responding to recommendations of reports. He will remember that when our Department was established in 2011, one issue about which he approached me was that it took a great deal of time for us to respond to the recommendations in minutes of reports. We have put great effort into ensuring we respond promptly and I think - Mr. Dermot Nolan can confirm - we now respond within 11 or 12 weeks. We also put pressure on Departments to respond and while the Comptroller and Auditor General might confirm this, we put a lot of effort into this and there have been improvements in the timeliness of the response. As for the wards of court report, I believe it arrived in our Department last week. I had a chance to look at it last night and we will review it. Inasmuch as it relates to our work, we will revert to the committee on that. As we literally only received it last week, we have not had a chance to consider it in detail. We will come back to the committee and will provide members with a view when we have had a chance to consider it.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I believe we received it on 12 November.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, we only got it last week, but certainly, inasmuch as it relates to our role - I am not sure it does - we are happy to provide comments and give the committee some views on it. That is no problem. On the wider issue of the role of this committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General, the focus is very much on mattersex post. The Comptroller and Auditor General prepares reports after the event. When it comes to assessing in advance proposals, theex-anteevaluation is something that in the first instance is undertaken by Departments and then our Department has a role in ensuring the appraisals are carried out properly with proper evaluation. Under our system, parliamentary questions can be asked at any stage about what is the evaluation and what is the assessment of it. It is possible to invite in Accounting Officers to explain their assessment of a particular issue. However, the Chairman is correct that within our system and with our structure and that of the Comptroller and Auditor General and this committee, the focus is very much on an ex postanalysis.

I am aware the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, touches on some of these issues although I have not had a chance to read its report in detail as it only came out quite recently. I believe the general recommendations are worthy of consideration and merit and if enhanced parliamentary oversight by this committee or other committees can enable Departments to be more effective in delivering services and enhancing value for money, then we very much support that. Our Department would support and would be happy to engage with this committee or with the Executive, no doubt it will be the new Government that must reflect on this, but we have no problem in discussing or giving views about what we think may or may not work. We are very open to this and if implementation of aspects of this report can enhance the role of this committee and that of our Department and if it makes them more effective, we would be very supportive of that.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We have become aware of these payments. We are surprised about the payments, having just heard about them. The key issue for the Central Bank is that it must satisfy itself that it is compliant with the law and with the provisions of the relevant Acts. That is the first issue for the Central Bank, that it must satisfy itself it is compliant with the Acts.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not know. We have not had a chance to review it. It only came to light this week.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, we do not. The Central Bank is separate with regard to the discharge of its function in respect of pay. Since we are the originators of the legislation and the legislation applies to the Central Bank, we are certainly happy to support it in its assessment. The key issue is, however, whether the Central Bank is consistent with the legislation that governs the pay arrangements for the bank. This is a matter we will explore with the Central Bank.

Mr. Robert Watt:

They are matters for the Central Bank and I can assure the Chairman I am not in receipt of any retention bonus, lest the Chairman has doubts.

Mr. Robert Watt:

My residing in my current position was not because the Government provided me with a retention bonus to stay, just in case the Chairman-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, that would be fine.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Watt and his team before the committee. Before turning to my main questioning, may I also mention the issue of wards of court, because my understanding is the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot audit the money involved? There was a recommendation from the Committee of Public Accounts that the funds held in trust for wards of court and any funds held in trust by the proposed office of public guardian should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that legislative amendments to facilitate this should be brought forward by the Ministers for Finance and Justice and Equality. There is a certain urgency in this regard because new legislation is coming down the track. From what I am told, the money may not be well invested. This is a serious issue and it is important that it is tracked, in particular given the vulnerability of the people who ultimately would benefit. I would be grateful for the Secretary General's comment on that issue. If he is unable to comment directly, if possible he should send the committee a report when he is in a position to do so.

Mr. Robert Watt:

As I mentioned in response to the earlier comment by the Chairman, we have received the report and I have had a chance to look through it. First, I was surprised about the scale of the funds, amounted to €950 million, as I had not realised it was such a large amount. It is important to stress this is not public money in the way in which we understand public money. It is not voted expenditure, as it is not voted upon by the House. It is not under the control of an Accounting Officer and, consequently, there is an issue as to the role of our Department.

We have no role. On the question of whether there is a future role for the Comptroller and Auditor General, I do not know. That is something we need to reflect on. We need to reflect on it very carefully because these are not liabilities that are liabilities of the State. They are not public moneys or voted moneys, so we need to be careful about what this means. All I can say by way of reassurance is that we will examine this matter and determine what the issues are. I am aware there are concerns about some funds running out and what that might mean for certain individuals. This is obviously a very serious issue for them. I am very happy to talk to the Comptroller and Auditor General offline about that. It is a matter on which we have not had visibility. As I said, it is not public money. It is not audited or voted on.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it not public money in the sense that it might have been awarded from the public purse in the first instance?

Mr. Robert Watt:

There is a public interest, obviously. I am not suggesting for one moment there is not; of course there is a public interest because people are in receipt of funds. If there is enough available, those people will then avail of services provided by the State. There is obviously a public interest but we need to read through this and examine it carefully. We should speak to the Comptroller and Auditor General about this and perhaps revert to the committee afterwards. I am sorry but I am not kicking for touch; it is just that we have not really formed a view.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Comptroller and Auditor General like to make a comment on that?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

We actually discussed it during the correspondence earlier. The policy encapsulated in the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 is that the Comptroller and Auditor General may audit funds, etc., of Departments but not a fund managed by the courts. That is where the impediment to my doing as proposed, by agreement or otherwise, lies. It would require legislative amendment. The measure is in place for a very particular reason, that is, the separation of powers between the legislative side and the court side. It has to be done not as a blanket change because there are other funds managed by courts and so on. All that would have to be thought through, followed by the presentation of a report by me to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is a fund but not an extra budgetary fund. It is not a fund within the general government sector. It is not because of the separation of powers per se that the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have a role under the Act-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is because it is not public money.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

Yes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We need to go through this, talk to the Comptroller and Auditor General and come back to the committee. I am sorry but I am not kicking for touch. We just have not formed a view and need to do so.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am taking from this that we really need to talk to our political side on this issue as well.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recognise that, after the Department of Finance, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is currently the most powerful Department in government. Obviously, it has played a very important role in turning the finances of the country around. In case I forget to say it later, I want to acknowledge now the role public servants have played in terms of the pay cuts they have had to accept and also, in some cases, extra hours worked. I very much hope they will continue to benefit from the fact that the economy has turned around.

Every Department has to come to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to get its hands on the money it requires to run its operations. Can Mr. Watt explain the criteria and examinations he employs to be satisfied that Departments' Estimates are accurate? In answering, could he address the fact that, in some cases, there have to be Supplementary Estimates. The body that stands out most obviously is the HSE. Other examples concern Army pensions and the Garda Síochána. It would be very useful for the public to hear the criteria.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I thank the Deputy for his comments on the Department. With regard to the budgetary process, we have three-year envelopes. We try to set out spending over a three-year basis. The broad parameters of the expenditure are set out based on a comprehensive review of spending which we carry out every three years. We go through a review with a Department very extensively and the papers are published and publicly available. We work with Departments in terms of determining the trends that are having an impact on spending on a no-policy-change basis. If we do nothing and deliver the same service, what would it mean for the cost of services? We look at new policy initiatives and commitments the Government has entered into and we build up an assessment of how much is required. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of politics. When the officials have done their work on figuring out the implications of policies and the no-policy-change position, the making of the allocations is a political decision. On an annual basis, that is refined with the budget. The intention of the three-year envelope-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For example, the Government can decide it wants to spend more money on justice.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, we set out a three-year envelope. The intention of three-year envelopes is that there would be more of a constraint and cap on the Department. The Department would have to manage within that and be more strategic. Of course, on an annual basis as the economy evolves and as the budgetary position is updated, there is scope for the Government to add to or increase the allocation, as in recent years. The first assessment is really for us to figure out the underlying trends and costs and what allocation is appropriate given the current policy and the perspective on the policy. That debate takes place across all Departments and agencies. It is quite an involved process.

Issues arise regarding Supplementary Estimates. In recent years, the Government has taken the opportunity as fiscal targets have been met and as the economy has grown faster than expected, to allocate additional moneys. Some of the Supplementary Estimates involve a conscious decision. In terms of transport, for example, there has been an increase in allocations in 2014 and 2015-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The thrust for that would not really come from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform but from the Government.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is a policy decision. The Government decided as things were improving and as we were well below our deficit targets, we would use some of the money to enhance capital. We saw that response in the storm that took place in 2014, when there was an allocation across a variety of different heads.

Of course, there are challenges in a number of different Votes. Overall, our record has been quite good over the past five years on managing expenditure. The vast majority of Votes, as I believe has been set out in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, stay at or below profile. However, issues clearly arise over Army pensions and the Garda. There are significant issues associated with the HSE. We are aware that the establishment of budgets and budget execution need to get better.

With the HSE over recent years, a large proportion of the increases have been on the basis of policy decisions the Government has taken each year requiring additional resources. Other factors relate to our ability or inability to forecast demand, be it in the hospital system or through medical card or GMS payments. Therefore, there is a real challenge associated with forecasting demand and managing spending within the health system. This is a challenge faced not only by Ireland but also by other countries. We talk to colleagues in OECD countries and they talk about budget issues, budget execution and budget planning. The health system comprises the one issue across all publicly funded health systems in respect of which it is very difficult to forecast demand, set Estimates and stay within budget. This is an ongoing challenge. That is the process.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is it so much more difficult than with the Department of Social Protection, for example, which obviously has the highest expenditure of any Department? I can understand certain reasons, such as the desire to make some new drug that has come on stream available to the people. That would obviously lead to an increase. Allowing for that, the Department of Health seems to be the most frustrating Department to deal with.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We do not find it frustrating; it is just a challenge. It takes up an awful lot of our time. Colleagues in the Department of Health and HSE are very much focused on doing their best in terms of managing budgets and delivering the service as best they can.

The comparison with the Department of Social Protection is interesting. The thing about social protection is that there is a payment rate and a given number of recipients. We have an idea of the number of pensioners next year and of the number of children who will no longer be eligible for the child benefit. We know the likely number of births. With the vast majority of social protection schemes, we have a reasonable fix.

Unemployment is the one area where it is very difficult but in the past four or five years, we have done reasonably well in terms of forecasting spend under social protection. This year is an exception in that the live register figures have not come down as fast as we thought they would. On average, it is about 9,000 or 10,000 above where we thought it would be and that will lead to an overspend. Within social protection, therefore, we have a reasonable fix.

The health system is vast, with 100,000 people employed and a spend of €14 billion. There are so many different delivery units. It is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are so many different aspects and demands to it that it is very difficult and an enormous challenge but we are working with the Health Service Executive and the Department of Health on how we can get a better matrix in terms of looking at the demand and what is likely to impact on spending over time.

There is a challenge for the next number of years as we move to the preventative arm of the new fiscal rules. There is less scope for Government to have Supplementary Estimates during the year and if there are significant overruns in one area, there will have to be compensatory changes elsewhere to stay within the overall fiscal space the Government is allowed. The new rules will have a greater impact in the future on the capacity of Government to have Supplementary Estimates of the type we have seen in the past number of years.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move on to the question of the Haddington Road agreement and the gradual removal of the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. Am I correct in saying that overall, there has been approximately €1 billion in savings under the Haddington Road agreement? Are we in a situation where we know the final savings? Mr. Watt might deal with that question first.

Mr. Robert Watt:

As the Deputy knows, Haddington Road was a long time ago and I am trying to think back to the agreement but there are many different elements to it. There was an increase in hours worked, changes in overtime rates, premium payments and cuts in pay for those earning over €65,000 so for a large number of the Haddington Road measures we have a very clear sight of the savings. They were provisions which enabled us to deliver more services or make savings, hours worked being an example. There were 15 million extra hours delivered in the system. There is a cash value on that but that enabled us to sustain services as we continued to cut, and those additional hours were very valuable. We can come back to the Deputy with our assessment of the savings. We are very happy that, in the main, the Haddington Road agreement delivered. We are very happy that at a particular time when we needed to make savings, and it was difficult to make savings on the budgets during that period - we had a long way to go in terms of cutting the deficit when we negotiated it - that agreement was the right thing to do for the Government and it delivered broadly in terms of where we are now.

We are in the process of unwinding and the Government has entered a new agreement with the unions which, over time, will unwind the provisions of FEMPI legislation but it will take a number of years to get back to where we were. The cuts in pay have been significant and the pay savings are significant, so it is not possible for the Government to unwind it over a three year period. It will take much longer than that given the extent of the savings and the cuts that were endured.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Mr. Watts give us an outline of the restoration arrangements that are in place and how they are likely to operate?

Mr. Robert Watt:

The agreement covers three years and the cost is a little under €300 million for each of those years - €260 million, €270 million or €280 million depending on the year. The cost is €267 million for next year, €290 million in 2017 and €287 million in 2018. Approximately €900 million would be the cost of the restoration over those three years and that would have an impact on the take-home pay of public servants, depending on where they are within the scale.

The Government decided in percentage terms to focus the reductions more on the lower to middle income groups, and they are benefiting more from the changes. Broadly, there are two changes. There is the winding up of the pension related deduction, which affects the vast majority of public servants and there is an increase for lower income groups from 1 January. There are changes in pay depending on the income group and the income level.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When Mr. Watt says the cost will be €900 million over three years, is that the total cumulative cost over that three year period?

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, so by 2018 the pay bill will be €900 million higher than this year based on the provisions set out within the agreement.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What will be the impact in terms of new people being taken on because that is a very important element in turning things around in the public service when people were not taken on for so many years?

Mr. Robert Watt:

As the Deputy knows, we reduced the overall public sector numbers by about 30,000 or 10% since 2008. In 2014 and 2015 the Government was in a position to increase employment again, and the focus has been to increase the number of teachers, gardaí, nurses, special needs assistants and front-line medical staff generally. The focus has been on increasing numbers and I set out in my opening address some of the increases that have been possible. Depending on the evolution of the fiscal position and what the medium-term expenditure plan will look like, the intention would be to increase employment in those key areas over the next number of years.

The real challenge for us is not to go back to some of the practices in the past. Nearly every area of the system showed an increase. We had to be very disciplined and focused on the areas of need, where we needed to increase the volume of public services-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can the Department influence that? I agree with Mr. Watt on the importance of spending the money wisely and in the areas where it is needed.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We work with the Minister, Deputy Howlin, in the first instance and set out what we think is affordable. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Government decide then the priorities and they set out their priorities in respect of the front-line services I have spoken about.

Within the Civil Service, numbers are down to about 35,000 or 36,000 from 41,000. We are starting to recruit more graduates at administrative officer, AO, and executive officer, EO, level. For the first time in recent months, we have recruited assistant principals, APs, and principal officers, POs, as part of an open competition, so there will be some recruitment into the Civil Service as people retire. Approximately 1,000 people retire every year so we will replace those people but in a different way. For example, we do not see the Civil Service numbers getting back up to the levels we had in 2007-08. We do not see that as desirable because we need to be more efficient. We need to digitalise and use technology to reduce numbers but we need to focus on where the need is greatest.

The public service will get bigger. We will be recruiting and the number of teachers and medical staff will increase but in a number of years' time, the shape and structure of the public service will look very different from the way it looked in 2007. The increment to each sector will be different and will vary depending on the needs but, ultimately, where we allocate will depend on-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will that lead in some cases to recruitment of people from outside the Civil Service structure?

Mr. Robert Watt:

We had an AP and PO competition in the past number of months. We have panels established and we will be taking people off those panels. For the principal officer post, 20% of the people on the panel are from outside the Civil Service; I think it was 25% for the AP post, therefore, 20% or 25% of people placed on those panels were from outside the Civil Service. The vast majority of people placed on panels are civil servants but, for the first time, we have a stream of people from different backgrounds entering the service.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that changing the culture of the Civil Service or is it too soon to say?

Mr. Robert Watt:

When it comes to manpower planning two things are important. First, we are providing opportunities and investing more in the existing staff and we are trying to recruit in the best possible way and from the widest pool. We hope that both in terms of investing in people and recruiting people from different backgrounds that, over time, we will have the range of experience that will enable us to deliver on our objectives.

The impact on the culture takes a long time. There can be positives and negatives in terms of the impact on the culture.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there areas where it is difficult to recruit people? In terms of media reports, we sometimes hear that there is difficulty encouraging nurses to return from abroad or difficulties taking on people with high levels of skills and qualifications in the public service. Is that a problem and, if so, how is it being addressed?

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think there is a generalised problem around recruitment. When we have had recruitment campaigns to recruit teachers, gardaí or civil servants, we have had plenty of applicants so I do not think there is a generalised issue.

There was much misinformation about this within the medical sector. The Deputy might have seen some of the reports last week about the difficulty of retaining staff and the number of staff who want to leave. Those numbers were all nonsense and the Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, has come out recently and corrected that and explained the actual position.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Watt in part saying-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

We have more nurses and doctors now. We have the highest number of doctors ever and the number of nurses has gone up dramatically over the past number of years. It is not back to where it was in 2008 but it is certainly way above the low level that we had in-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we take nurses and doctors, is there a problem in terms of-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think there is a generalised problem across the system in terms of recruiting or retaining staff. There are pockets of difficulty. I will speak for the Civil Service, if I may. There is difficulty in terms of ICT staff. There is a major problem in terms of recruiting and retaining the type of staff we need, which is a challenge for us given the importance of technology in improving services and data sharing. This will become a greater challenge. We have a real challenge in terms of attracting people into senior leadership positions across Government Departments.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does Mr. Watt see-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

The number of applicants we receive for posts is low and so is the number of potential candidates that we have that we can appoint. We have a challenge when it comes to certain specialist skills and attracting people into leadership positions across the Civil Service.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there measures in place to try to address that problem?

Mr. Robert Watt:

Within ICT, we are trying to recruit people at different levels and grades and invest in them and to try to set out the benefits of a career in ICT in the Civil Service. It is not just about the money because we cannot really compete on the money. It is about the experience of working in Government and dealing with the types of challenges we are facing. We are trying to present ourselves in a different way because we cannot compete on money. The challenges of attracting senior leaders is an ongoing problem that we have. We are investing in principal officers and Assistant Secretaries and are trying to provide more mentoring and support. We are putting in place a talent management programme in which we identify future leaders and try to invest in them. We have two problems. We cannot compete with the private sector when it comes to pay for senior people and people do not want to take on public roles in which they have to deal with the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees. They do not like the treatment meted out by the media on a regular basis so people from the private sector, in the main, are not interested in taking on public roles because they believe the risks for them are too great. I do not know how we should deal with that but that is the reality of it. The pay is too low and the risks are too great for senior people from the private sector. That is what we get-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is what we get repeatedly. We need to think about this. In terms of our own people, we are investing in them to see if we can have more candidates who can present themselves for leadership roles.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Watt believe he has not yet fully come up with an answer to how to keep the best people?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, we do not have an answer when it comes to attracting people into leadership positions.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of doctors and nurses, Mr. Watt seems to be suggesting that, in the broad sense, there is not a problem. Are we able to retain or encourage back doctors and nurses who have received their training and professional qualifications in this country? Is that still a problem?

Mr. Robert Watt:

There was some debate about this last week and there were statistics thrown around that were misleading. A class of graduating doctors were asked if they were leaving Ireland and I think 90% of them said they may wish to leave. If one went to any group of graduates from the universities and asked them if they would like to spend some time abroad, they would all say that they would. I thought some of those statistics were misleading. I think there is a challenge in the health system but I do not think it is as chronic as some of the media has reported. The Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, responded to some of that reporting and said that the position is a little bit different. I think it is correct to say that we have never had as many doctors in the system in the history of the State as we do now. If there was a major retention problem - a really chronic problem - that would not be the case. That is not to suggest that we could not do more to attract people from abroad who have left. The HSE has been involved in those recruitment campaigns.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sometimes I hear complaints about delays in recruitment in terms of the public service and in the health area as well. Does Mr. Watt have any sense of how long it takes to fill posts? I have heard of some situations anecdotally such as an occupational therapist within the HSE system who was interviewed for one position but offered another after all the interviews. In some cases, there seems to be a considerable delay between the advertising of positions and the filling of them. How is that being addressed?

Mr. Robert Watt:

The Public Appointments Service manages most appointments to public positions and it does a fantastic job. The activity it is dealing with now is up 50% or 60% in 2015 compared to 2014. The level and volume of activity and the demand placed on it as we are starting to recruit again is enormous and it is doing a fantastic job within a very constrained budget allocation. We never give it as much money as it wants and it is always under pressure. The Public Appointments Service operates within the code. There are very clear guidelines on how we recruit people. We have a very rigorous, transparent process and because of that, it can take time. There are screening processes, shortlisting, final interviews and then people are placed on panels. It can take three to six months. That can create frustration and delays. If we are going to offer a position to a graduate coming into the Civil Service who may be with us for 20 or 30 years, we need to spend as much time as necessary to ensure we are getting the best candidates and that we are happy with the people we place on panels. I know-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that not way slower than other areas? I come from the teaching profession. When I applied for jobs, it did not take that long to fill them. Surely, in many cases, one is trying to fill positions that need to be filled yesterday, as it were.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes. We do not employ teachers, the schools do. The school would organise the competition and offer the post. We get a lot of complaints from managers across the system who have staff shortages and want people to come in and they complain about the time it takes. My view is that we need to get the best people who will be with us for a long time doing very important work. I understand the frustration. The Deputy has probably received representations - the Public Appointments Service also gets them - from people who are looking for work and want to join the service and we are slow at taking them off panels. I can understand the frustration but we need to be sure we are getting the best people in because they could be with us for a long time. If somebody is coming into a private sector organisation, it could take a long time to give notice and manage that process so I am not sure how out of kilter we are but we could look at it and we might come back to the committee with some data on how long it takes.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have mentioned the teaching sector but my impression is that the private sector fills posts much more rapidly and presumably they also want to get the best and most suitable people.

Mr. Robert Watt:

They do not operate under our code. Appointments to public positions operates within a code that I think everybody here would accept is absolutely critically important. It has served the State very well. The Public Appointments Service serves the State very well. I would be reluctant to suggest anything that makes it harder for it to deliver on its mandate. We are happy to come back to the Deputy with some data on how long it takes to fill and whether there are outliers there.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My last questions are on the area of procurement. Part of Mr. Watt's opening statement dealt with that issue. In the broad sense, we should all be satisfied if the changes in procurement policy are improving efficiency. On the other side of it, as individual Deputies, we get complaints, particularly from small companies that are feeling as though they are being pushed to the wall because of Government procurement policy and the difficulty that small companies have in competing with much bigger enterprises.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We hear this and we try to respond by providing supports and information and working with Enterprise Ireland and other bodies in terms of facilitating the access of SMEs to contracts. Within the circulars that we set out, we encourage the breaking up of contracts into lots, where that makes sense, and to have different framework contracts to accommodate that. The analysis that Mr. Quinn and his team did, which we discussed the last time we were here, shows that 66% of the spend goes to SMEs, which is significant.

There is a lot of procurement we do where the only providers are large entities. If one thinks about, for example, the procurement of drugs, the companies involved are large and are not SMEs. However, for the spend which is relevant here, SMEs are accessing a considerable amount. During the process of reform, contracts that have been in place for a long period of time may be re-examined and changed, and companies may lose contracts or feel they have lost out. There is always going to be kickback and issues arising from that. We are very cognisant of that and we receive such feedback all of the time, as do Ministers.

The overall mandate is to operate a more efficient and professional service. There was a lot of unhappiness in the past with the way procurement was done. The Comptroller and Auditor General and others have completed many reports on procurement which found problems with non-compliance, value for money and a variety of other issues. Of course, there are still issues now and the system will never be perfect. However, we are happy that the journey we are on now is to professionalise a really core function, to make it much more commercially focused and to address a variety of issues that existed in the past. Already we are seeing very significant savings. We have saved over €100 million to date and we have just started the process. We have ambitious targets to save up to €500 million over time on procurement-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that within the Civil Service?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, that is across the entire system, the whole public service, which has a procurement spend of between €9.5 billion and €10 billion, and we believe we can make more savings. If one looks at framework contracts that were entered into for electricity, gas and other services, one sees that we are making very significant savings. The State needs to use its monopsony power more and it is crazy that it does not do so. That is what we are embarking on and that will save money. Ultimately, what we save can be used to improve services elsewhere. The aim is to improve services all the time. Members of this committee and all Members of these Houses call for more spending on a variety of services all the time.

There is an obligation on the State to procure in the most efficient way and that is what we are trying to do. I am aware that there are challenges, that some sectors lose out and some companies lose out. In most cases the business goes to another company employing people in this economy, so there is not an overall loss to the economy, but there is an impact for individual companies. I am fully aware of that.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt mentioned that some areas were non-compliant. I ask him to name the Departments that are non-compliant and outline what his Department is doing about that.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I did not say they were non-compliant. I said there was an issue in the past with weak practices. What we now have in place is a circular and an approach to procuring common goods based on a framework we have set out whereby we do the procurement for Departments and provide the goods or services for them. In other cases, Departments undertake the procurement themselves and we provide them with guidance, assistance and help. There is always going to be an issue with compliance. We cannot police every single contract that is entered into. That is absolutely impossible and we do not wish to do that. However, we must encourage Departments to stick with the circulars, to implement best practice and to make sure they are getting value for money. That is what we strive to do and that is what Mr. Quinn and his team are working on. There will always be non-compliance at some level. A report from the Comptroller and Auditor General last year showed that there was a spend of approximately €150 million to €160 million that was not based on competitive tender processes. There were various reasons for that. In some cases the explanations were not adequate, in our view, and there should have been a competitive process. However, the number of cases of non-compliance for which there was no justification represented a very small percentage of the overall procurement spend. We will monitor it, and no doubt the Comptroller and Auditor General will revisit the issue at some stage. We are happy to work with his office on this. The most important principle is that there is a competitive tendering process and that we strive to get the best value for money for the taxpayer.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have any role in terms of compliance in the context of spending by charitable organisations that receive Government funding?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, but there is a circular on the provision of grants, which was the subject of a report. I referred in my opening statement to the fact that we have a new policy circular relating to grants which sets out a statement of principles in terms of clarity, transparency, value for money and so forth. We expect bodies in receipt of grants from the State to procure based on good practice, and that is what we set out within the statement. We hope that happens. As I also mentioned in my opening statement, we have established Benefacts, a single repository of data and information on the sector, which receives €4.4 billion and comprises more than 20,000 entities. Next year we will have a database that shows how much money entities are receiving from the State and what we are getting from that in terms of outcomes and outputs. That will improve their compliance and performance over time and aid this committee in its assessment of the extent to which they are providing value for money for the taxpayer.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is an area that we need to focus on for the future.

Mr. Robert Watt:

There was a single supplier-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

In 2014, what was the value of all of the contracts mentioned? What is the total involved? I ask because the Comptroller and Auditor General did a report last year covering a certain period which suggested that there was a spend of approximately €150 million that was not subject-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

So there was spending of €77 million that was not subject to competitive processes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, but there are valid reasons for not conducting a competitive process. There are some valid reasons, which we accept. It should not be and is not the norm, but there are valid reasons, including the extension of a contract, urgency or if there is only one supplier of the goods or services. There are some good reasons for not having a competitive process.

In the vast majority of cases, one should go through a competitive tendering process based on the rules that Mr. Quinn has set out and on the guidelines furnished to the committee. They are not necessarily our rules, they are EU guidelines. The issue for us is the amount involved. The Comptroller and Auditor General's previous report on this indicated that there was spending of between €30 million to €40 million without a competitive process and there was no good reason for the absence of such a process. That is the subset where the problem lies and it is not acceptable. That is the amount and I absolutely agree that it is not acceptable and must be addressed.

I would make the point, however, although I know the Chairman hates when I say this, that the total spend is €10 billion. Does a sum of €30 million or €40 million, in terms of non-compliance with a process, out of a spend of €10 billion represent an okay outcome or is it disastrous? I would contend that we need to do better, that this should not happen but that, in the overall scheme of things, there is a pretty effective level of compliance. It suggests to me that 99.99% of the spend is actually compliant. Is that not the case? Is it material in the overall scheme of things?

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, but-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, it is not.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, sorry Chairman but-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Okay.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I told Mr. Watt that he would be accused of something before he left here today.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Thank you, Chairman. I note that you have said that the performance is good or acceptable but I think it is better than good, based on the data I have seen.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I am focused on the data and the evidence. The Chairman is saying that Departments are not making a great effort to comply with the procurement rules. If the Chairman has data and evidence to back up that claim, I am happy to say that I am wrong, but-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give an example when Mr. Watt is finished speaking.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Hang on. We can all give examples but the data that we have, based on the Comptroller and Auditor General's assessment of this, suggest that between €40 million to €50 million of spend on procurement was outside of the competitive process and there was not a sufficiently good reason for it being outside thus. I may be mistaken but I believe that was the figure. The sum was small. I would contend - although the committee is entitled to disagree with me - that, in the overall context of the spend that we have on procurement, this is immaterial in an auditing sense. That said, I am not suggesting we should not be concerned it. I am suggesting that it is inevitable, with thousands of contracts every year across hundreds of bodies, that some contracts could be executed in a better and more efficient way. There is no company, organisation or system in either the public or private sector anywhere in the world that gets everything 100% right all of the time.

I understand the concerns of the Chairman. In terms of his question as to what we do, we work with Departments and remind them of their obligations all the time. Mr. Quinn's team works with the procurers in the various agencies to explain what we want. We are moving from a situation where this was not as professionally focused as a function in the service as we would like and we are trying to fully professionalise it. Mr. Quinn's office has been in place for just under three years. The process takes time but we are very happy with the progress we are making. That said, we are not content in the face of examples of non-compliance. I am not disagreeing with the Chairman. We need to figure out how we can do better across this vast system and determine whether there are sanctions or other mechanisms that can be put in place to improve the situation further. We are striving all the time to ensure that Departments understand their obligations and are working with them in that regard. Some of the reasons given for non-compliance, such as, for example, an absence of specialist staff, are not acceptable. That is not an adequate reason because specialist staff are available. That is not a good enough reason for not doing things properly. If Departments do not-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

-----have adequate specialist staff, we will work with them, go through the process and help them so that is not a good enough reason. Some of the other reasons given are valid, others are less so. We can work with them.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would make the case to Mr. Watt that this is not just about the money. He is using figures such as €77 million, €150 million and so forth but for almost a year now we have been dealing with the HSE and the way it awards contracts. In many cases there is a lack of competitive tendering. The cases we have been dealing with involve allegations of very serious child abuse and what we have found is that the HSE was awarding contracts, without competition, to former HSE employees. The executive has been dragged, kicking and screaming into changing that process. No offence to Mr. Quinn, but this was happening under the nose of his office and that of Mr. Watt's Department. The only reason we have got to the point now where proposals have been put down on paper is because we pursued the issue relentlessly for the past year. It took the HSE an awful long time to admit to something that was known about for a considerable period. It is not just about the money. In the cases we dealt with, the exposure to conflict of interest was massive and the seriousness of the issues was enormous.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Could I come in on that point?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this case, a Garda investigation remains ongoing but the proposals are there and have been accepted. Mr. Watt said that one corrects things as one goes along and that is fine but that has not been our experience with the HSE. It had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into agreeing to change its policy when it came to awarding incredibly important contracts. We are not talking about enormous amounts of money. We are not talking about millions but tens of thousands of euro in terms of the value of the contracts. I do not accept Mr. Watt's contention because our experience in here has been the polar opposite. When we raised this issue over and over again, it was ignored. We had representatives of the HSE in here and they cited some very obscure regulations with regard to getting around the competitive tender process. Two representatives from Mr. Quinn's office were also here and were asked whether they knew about this but they knew nothing about it. They knew nothing about the specific instances involved, which were disgraceful. That is just one example I would put to Mr. Watt to illustrate that it is not always about the money. The importance of this relates to the gravity of the issues involved too.

Mr. Robert Watt:

There is absolutely no justification for a process where there are conflicts of interest like that. There is absolutely no justification for it and everyone is clear about that. As this is the subject of an ongoing investigation, I will not comment on the specifics but it is very clear what the policy should be.

It is disappointing to hear from the Deputy that after this committee identified a problem, those involved still suggested that this was acceptable and said that they were not going to change their processes. That is not good enough. There is a very clear way of procuring goods and services. There are technicalities involved but the policy is very clear and no one should be under any illusions about-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us call a spade a spade. The HSE is the worst offender. It is not just me making that analysis. The Comptroller and Auditor General-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

In the main, the HSE does its own procurement and we help it for the procurement of some common goods and services. We are very happy to help in any way we can to ensure that the processes are robust. Frankly, I am not going to defend any processes in the HSE or anywhere else which do not have value for money at their core.

I accept mistakes are made and things go wrong. If people are managing a process that is not adequate and it has been brought to their attention by the committee repeatedly, then it is not acceptable. We are working with HSE in putting in place a procurement strategy and a more focused approach. We have our job, as well as the Department of Health, to ensure it is doing it properly. Obviously, the committee has its job in calling it to account as to how moneys are spent.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy:

If I might just make an observation on that. The HSE is actually capturing the problem better. It still does not have a total grip on the extent to which it is not procuring competitively. What might appear to be a worsening trend is actually an improvement in the identification of the problem. I have previously pointed out that the problem in the HSE is a systemic one which it is struggling to deal with and improve.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, sadly they cannot tell us to get lost. I am afraid that is not how it works.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We will take it up. The fact the HSE now has the data and we understand the problem will enable us to improve performance and address it. Without the data, one cannot measure or improve. We are happy to continue providing support and clarity under procurement functions. The HSE management and the Department of Health accept it has not been adequate. We are working with them to address this. What would be useful - it is something that Mr. Paul Quinn’s Office of Government Procurement team can come up with - would be to look at the data on non-compliance across the system for the latest year. What the Chairman described is not a trend because it was under-reported in 2012. It identifies a problem. We do not know whether it is getting worse or better. Obviously, there is a reporting issue, as opposed to it being a trend.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Earlier, the Chairman asked about the Fennelly commission and I asked about the inquiry into the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC. I am not going to stray into policy or ask Mr. Watt any policy questions. However, I want to go through this again.

The committee is still dealing with the legacy costs of tribunals. For example, the figure of €159 million comes to mind when we are talking about Mahon and €50 million for Moriarty, etc. When the Department of Finance was dealing with the analysis of how much it would cost to run a commission of investigation into IBRC, Mr. Watt said he does not have that figure right now. Does he have any guesstimate as to what figure was on the memo to the Government?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his opening statement, Mr. Watt stated, “The public spending code provides that appraisals and detailed assessments should be carried out before Exchequer resources are committed.” He also said the Government did not expect the IBRC inquiry to be eight years at the time when it made the decision to set it up. Now that there is an expectation that the IBRC inquiry could take eight years, does Mr. Watt revise this? Does he put a cap on it? Does he say to the Government this could be massively open-ended? Does the Department say it cannot have this, based on what has happened historically with open-ended tribunals and the costs that have ensued? The public deserves some kind of assurance that we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to investigations. Is that fair?

Mr. Robert Watt:

In terms of the eight years, what I said was that I had not heard that timeframe. I do not think the Department of Finance was thinking in those terms at all. I do not recall that. I do not want to stray into what is a policy issue and a political issue of the day because I do not want to say anything that is then going to become an issue. That is not my job.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking about the process.

Mr. Robert Watt:

The Deputy can be pretty sure about our concerns and position. I do not like the sound of open-ended liabilities for the State. If one looks at our record on inquiries, tribunals and commissions, one can see that.

I will give my views to the Minister about this and the funding of it. I do not wish to comment on what is a policy issue now and is a public process. The Deputy can imagine what the Department’s view is, however.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is important for the public, in fairness. If, for example, the assessment from the individual who is conducting this investigation is that it could take eight years, which is not hypothetical because it has been in the media, what does the Department do when it discovers that? Does it have input? Does Mr. Watt give his opinion and tell his Minister we have a problem here? Does he say to the Minister we need to correct it and put a cap on it? Does he just ignore it and leave it go?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, we do not ignore it. I would give my views to the Minister about what I think is appropriate.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My guess is that some people in the public would say that IBRC should be investigated. However, if one puts a realistic cost tag on it, then the public would say it is not so sure. Are the projections made out of thin air? It seems to me that this could be the case. There was no expectation that this inquiry would take as long as some people are saying it would take. That is a relevant issue for the Department, based on what Mr. Watt said in his opening statement.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is an issue for the Department of Finance in the first instance. Given public moneys are involved, we would then give a view on that.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, the original cost would have been included in the memo that was presented.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not recall what the cost was but we can figure out what the original estimate was when the decision was taken.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not know. I am sure the Department of Finance is working on it now. I do not know what its new view is. I can check and we can provide the committee with whatever we can on it.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr Watt saying that potentially this could be revisited? If Mr. Watt puts a different price tag on it-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not make the decision.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, if it is found it will cost four times more than the original analysis, does Mr. Watt then say to his Minister a cap needs to be put on this?

Mr. Robert Watt:

I am not close to what has gone on in this area but the Department of Finance will have to come up with its assessment of how long this may take and the cost of it. As part of the decision-making process, those involved will put that in. If it involves money, then we will offer a view. Ultimately, it is a policy decision in respect of how we proceed.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough.

I want to ask Mr. Watt about recruitment. He said some things about the private sector. We deal with this in the committee a little. We dealt with the Department of Justice and Equality recently over not hiring a Secretary General. Three people in the interview process were not deemed appropriate to be offered the position. That is high-end in the public sector. Last week, we dealt with the Attorney General's office, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor's office. The case was made at the time that they were unable to hire enough young lawyers into Government. I do not imagine the public views hiring more lawyers in government as a crisis, to be honest. If it is a question of nurses, then the answer might be "Yes" and the public would have a different view.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is not a crisis until someone is sued.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would rather no one sued me.

Mr. Robert Watt:

One never knows. Hang on in there.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a better chance of it if there are more lawyers. I am not trying to be funny but they view it differently. Mr. Watt answered the question when it comes to doctors and nurses but I am unsure whether he has really dealt with this in enough detail when it comes to the pressures relating to hiring and recruitment within the public sector. The average age within the public sector is 47.9 years. I gather that is the age right now.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is the median age.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt is saying that in many cases, the private sector is beating the public sector when it comes to recruitment of individuals in certain sectors. Where are the critical areas within the public sector now? Mr. Watt referred to information and communications technology. Are there any others?

Mr. Robert Watt:

Generally, we have a demographic issue in the wider public service and certainly in the Civil Service. The median age Deputy Deasy referred to is broadly the correct figure. We are in the process of transitioning. Many colleagues who were recruited in the 1970s during a period of expansion are retiring and moving out. We are now in a position where we can recruit again. We are starting to recruit across the grades, from clerical officer, executive officer, administrative officer and assistant principal officer - in fact, right across the Civil Service. We do not have a problem when it comes to generalised recruitment. Our pay rates are competitive. We have had applicants in competitions held recently. We have been happy with the quality of the applicants and the people we have placed on panels. They are excellent people. In my Department, the recruits we have taken on in recent years have been fantastic people.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Mr. Robert Watt:

However, there are gaps I am aware of. There is a challenge within the legal offices. Deputy Deasy is right about the public. The public always thinks of teachers, gardaí, nurses and doctors. That is their focus because those are the staff involved in the services people interact with. People are less concerned about whether the law offices of the State are well populated with good people. Of course, if we do not have good people in those offices, then problems will appear quickly because we will be unable to provide services. The DPP will not be able to do its work and so on.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Mr. Robert Watt:

There may be an issue within the legal area. I do not know whether it is acute but there may be an issue with our ability to attract legal people and retain them. I am not absolutely convinced yet but we shall see, depending on how the labour market recovers. At the moment, there is certainly without doubt a major problem with ICT. The most acute problem we face relates to technologists. There is no doubt that if I was asked for one area within the Civil Service, I would advert to technology. The rates of pay the private sector offers are multiples. We have seen it ourselves with the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. We have been trying to recruit. We brought someone in and then the person left. We have tried to recruit other people but we are simply not competitive. The pay is not competitive.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When it came up earlier, Mr. Watt was asked what he would do about it. I am unsure whether Mr. Watt gave a really-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

When it comes to technology, we are trying to bring people in at different levels. We are trying to invest in our own people and train them. We are trying to package the career so that technology in the Civil Service is appealing. People are not necessarily going to take up the opportunities for money but they will take them because the work is interesting and exciting for a period. It looks great to have a number of years working with us on a CV. It makes them more valuable when they go out. We are trying to adjust the offering in a way. We have had some success. We have brought some people in recently and we are trying to recruit some more people. We have had some success but it is an ongoing challenge that we must face. We have a particular problem. There is a wider shortage of these skills. There is a shortage of people with the technical capacity.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apart from ICT, are there any other areas?

Mr. Robert Watt:

I realise people do not like to hear this but there is a real challenge in getting people to offer themselves for senior positions, including heading Departments and agencies. That is an issue around the Assistant Secretary group we have and their willingness to present themselves.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt gave the reason for that. He said they do not want to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. Only a tiny percentage of people ever show up in here, in fairness.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I was being slightly flippant but if the committee members want to be serious about it and have a conversation about it, it is important to realise we have a major problem in attracting people to senior levels because of the pay. Second, regardless of whether it is fair, people believe that when it comes to committees and the media profile of senior public servants, they are treated in an unfair way. I am not going to get into it because if I say that, it will be the headline.

Mr. Robert Watt:

There is a perception, Chairman, and we may not like it. Some people do not like the idea of spending hours being grilled in front of committees. That is fine. Unfortunately, they have seen how some of our colleagues have been treated in the media in recent years and they decide that they do not want it.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Deputy Deasy and I might be thick-skinned enough to put up with all this because that is the way life is. However, not everyone fancies it. There may be very good people who would like to come in but when they consider the risk - there is a risk about this public aspect to the job - they say, "No, thank you". Does that have implications for how the media reports public service? Of course, it does. We all know how the media have evolved in the past five or ten years and how they treat people now.

Mr. Robert Watt:

If you want me to give my views, I do not think the sort of ethical standards that pertained in the media when it comes to the treatment of individuals now is what it was five years, ten, 15 or 20 years ago. The media will now report things, say things and treat people in a way that would have been very different in the past. That is my view. The Chairman and committee members may disagree but that is my view. That has an impact.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think it is necessarily relevant for the work of this committee.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We can disagree on this, maybe. You have asked my honest view. I have spoken to many potential candidates. They have cited Dáil committees and the way they have seen people treated in the media as a reason not to take on certain roles. Deputy Deasy and I might think that nonsensical and that they need to grow up and whatever else but that is the view. Therefore, there is a challenge for us in terms of the offering and in terms of pay and the risks around the roles. We need to work through this and think about how we are going to address it in future because it is a challenge for us.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that is Mr. Watt's genuinely held view based on his conversations with these individuals. I am doing the arithmetic in my head on the chances of someone having to show up at a Dáil committee, for example. It is small enough. Most public servants, if they are not a nurse or a garda-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

I am referring to senior people. I am not talking about the average.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a regular public interface but beyond that-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Beyond that, it is not an issue.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Beyond that, the chances of the regular or medium to senior public servant in Dublin interfacing at a committee like this are still rather small.

Mr. Robert Watt:

They are very small.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I put it to Mr. Watt that I do not think he is going to engender too much sympathy among the public. People will say that these people knew it before they signed up. If Mr. Watt is saying it is a bar to people taking the step in the first place, that is fair enough.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I am not looking for sympathy. I do not care. This is the job. I am making a serious point. The committee members can dismiss this if they want but the way in which we interact with senior civil servants and the way in which the media deals with civil servants have an impact on attracting people to take up these jobs. That is all I am saying. I am not looking for sympathy and I do not really care but that is my sense of it.

If committee members do not believe me - they may not believe me - the next time Ms Fiona Tierney, head of the Public Appointments Service, is before the committee, the committee should ask her about the question and about her conversations with hundreds of candidates over a number of years. She will give the committee her view.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For what it is worth, I do not disbelieve Mr. Watt in any sense. He is the first person to have articulated that point as strenuously as he has.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It was not that strenuous.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was pretty strenuous.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Was it? Okay.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was clear.

Mr. Robert Watt:

"Clear" is different.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a good thing. If that is Mr. Watt's recruiting experience, then it is a point that he should make. I would not make excuses for it. It was fair enough.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Deputy Deasy asked me the question and I gave him my view. Is this not something about which we should all be concerned?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I might agree with Mr. Watt's opinion on the media. The majority of people in this building would, too.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I know.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will move on under the heading of reform, something that Mr. Watt mentioned a good few times in his opening statement. I advised the committee that I would raise the issue of the tender for the contract for air services to the Aran Islands. I am directing my question to Mr. Watt initially, because he referred to reforms within the system. This was an example of a botched job that had to be reversed because due diligence was not done. How could the system have awarded a contract to a company that was not in a position to deliver the service because it had never had a licence? I have a conflict of interest, as my wife is from Inis Mór, but I am probably the only Deputy who uses that service regularly. I have some experience of it. When this situation occurred, it caught my attention. When it was announced that the preferred tender was a helicopter service on the other side of Galway city, the immediate reaction of almost everyone, not just in Galway or on the islands but in the entire country, was "For God's sake." It was crazy.

In terms of delving into the nuts and bolts of how the process was constructed, what does Mr. Watt do as head of a Department that has direct jurisdiction over and oversight of the Departments involved and Mr. Quinn's office? Does he intervene? He stated that he did not want to intervene in every contract, which is fair enough, but people might ask whether he and his officials inquired into what was happening when he found out about this situation.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We worked with the relevant office - that is, the Office of Government Procurement, OGP - on drawing up contracts. A number of issues arise and I will ask Mr. Quinn to contribute after I have given my view on them. I do not necessarily agree with the characterisation of this as a botched job. It is not fair to say that due diligence was not carried out. The issue was whether Galway Airport had a licence to provide the service over the period of the contract. The airport was contacted for a check and confirmed that it had a licence. It did not tell us at the time that the licence would expire at the end of this year. The tender documentation that was submitted did not say the airport would not have a licence beyond the end of 2015. During the clarification stages of the contract, it was not made clear to us either that this was an issue.

When one enters into a contract, the requirements on the prospective provider of the service are clear. An obligation was on the airport to ensure that it was compliant and in a position to provide us with the service. It was asked and did not tell us. It had an opportunity to do so in the tender documentation. One cannot check everything. One cannot walk down the runway checking for potholes and kicking the tyres of the aeroplane. There is only so much that we can do. When we procure electricity from ESB, we do not check to see whether the turbines are working. We take it that ESB is in a position to provide us with the service - namely, that it is licensed to provide power and its turbines are working.

Due diligence was undertaken, but we should have been told that the airport was not in a position to-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go back to the first part of the question.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It should have told us that it was not in a position to provide the service, but it did not.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first part of my question was about how the process was constructed in terms of the facilities being on the other side of Galway city and the fact that the service was to be provided by helicopters rather than fixed-wing aircraft. Did Mr. Watt-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

The nature of the service that is the subject of the contract is specified by the EU regulation. As the Deputy knows, there are state aid rules.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I have read the regulation. It does not specify this.

Mr. Robert Watt:

If I understand the regulation, the airports that were potentially to be used had to be within proximity of the population that was being served. The regulation does not stipulate helicopter versus fixed-wing aircraft. It refers to-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An air service.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes. It was clear that the contract was framed reasonably within the regulation.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

It might be open to interpretation.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

The critique is that the airport should not have tendered if it did not have a licence, but that was a matter for it. When we asked, those at the airport told us that it had a licence. They did not tell us that the licence would end at the end of this year, but they should have. People might point fingers, but at the end of the day we must re-tender - that process is beginning - and extend the contract for a year. We will see how matters pan out.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question that everyone wants to ask is-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

In terms of accountability, Mr. Quinn and his team were involved. Mr. Quinn came to me and told me the position. I checked and asked questions and am satisfied that the team did everything it reasonably could in the circumstances. Deputy Deasy may disagree, but I was satisfied with the explanations. I have read the report and the papers that have been provided to me. I am satisfied that the team drafted a reasonable tender around a reasonable competition within the regulations as set out.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. My motivation and that of the people who are potentially affected by this issue is to learn what will happen next. There will be a new competition for the contract and people want to know what the Department will do about it. Everything else is in the past. I might agree with what Mr. Watt stated about the checks that he did, although I have a small disagreement with some elements of the process. Some of the bidders certainly do. They did not have a great experience with it. However, we will park that. How will the tender process be constructed in future? Will it be open to other air services or will the officials do the pragmatic thing and narrow it down to a geographical area that is reasonable in terms of air travel to and from the islands? Will they do the same thing all over again? How could they, given the fact that a licence would not be available in the first place?

Mr. Robert Watt:

The circumstances are different.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Are we in a situation in which we must narrow it down to one airfield?

Mr. Robert Watt:

Tender documentation will be issued next year. Is 2016 the plan?

Mr. Paul Quinn:

Yes.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We will see what the base is then. I understand that we and the OGP are in discussions. Mr. Quinn may wish to comment.

Mr. Paul Quinn:

At this moment, we are planning for a new tender to issue in or around March of next year. The future of the airport at Carnmore remains uncertain. As the Deputy is aware, it is owned by two local authorities. They have expressed the view that the airport will be unavailable because they will not release it to the operator. I do not believe they have made a firm decision yet, so we are monitoring the situation.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Assuming that does not change, which is the likelihood, where will we stand?

Mr. Paul Quinn:

We will work with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to agree on the appropriate number of airfields and what their locations should be. If these are reduced for geographical and travel reasons to Minna Airport, which is the existing jumping-off point, and if that is the base against which people are to bid their services, another issue will arise, because Minna Airport is owned by the same structure that owns Aer Arann Islands, as many people are aware.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the quandary at which Mr. Quinn's office may arrive and am asking the question. The matter of the licence not being available in respect of Galway has been thought about and the question is: what will the office then do?

Mr. Paul Quinn:

We then will be obliged to look at that. We have no firm answer on that at this point because it brings into play the regulations associated with the licensing of Na Minne and competition law because effectively, one will have a potential de facto monopoly for the only jumping-off point. We must work with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and with the law offices of the State to figure out how to go about meeting our obligations under the EU regulations on opening up these services and how to so do in a way that is compliant, open, transparent and gives people an opportunity to compete.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine Mr. Quinn but in plain talk, it may be that only one airport will be available and Aer Arann owns that airport. Consequently, the decision for the Government, outside the legal matters, the regulations, monopoly law, etc., is that it may have a choice as to whether it wishes to continue the service or basically to tailor it to that particular airport. It is as simple as that. When it comes to the new tender, does Mr. Watt agree it really is coming down to this?

Mr. Paul Quinn:

Deputy, with respect, that is a matter in large part for the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, which is not present, to answer on that issue because ultimately-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee tried to bring in that Department but I refer to Mr. Joe Hamill's surgery. I am sorry that some officials are not present but that is beside the point. The other issue, which I consider to be relevant, is about the expertise and experience within the Office of Government Procurement when it comes to air services and air transport. Would one not be better off dealing with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to a certain extent when it comes to these services?

Mr. Paul Quinn:

No, I disagree. The category manager who led on this is well qualified both from a procurement perspective and had worked previously with the National Transport Authority in the procurement of various different services. There are matters of specification that come into play here but between the Office of Government Procurement and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, there was good consultation with both the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the Irish Aviation Authority on all these matters. While some technical knowledge is required, this process has been run a number of times previously by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not labour this issue forever. My own opinion is the Government might have got a bit lucky on this one because the licence was not in place at Galway. I have absolutely nothing against the preferred bidder in this case but having a helicopter service based at the location picked by the Office of Government Procurement made absolutely no sense. The office went through its processes and was given a job to do; it made no sense whatsoever. From my perspective, as someone who has used that service and knows the geography and infrastructure in the area, it was crazy to have constructed it the way it was. This is not just my opinion but is that of anybody who has a scintilla of information or knowledge of what I am talking about when it comes to that air service.

Mr. Paul Quinn:

With respect, this was not the first time Carnmore was included. The public service obligation, PSO, tender has come around a number of times-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Mr. Paul Quinn:

-----and in 2013, Carnmore was included. It was not included in the prior run at the PSO because that airport was not open. However, prior to this, Carnmore has featured a number of times so in one sense, it should be no surprise to anybody that Carnmore was in the tender.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very well. That is-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

The Deputy sees where we are.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The important thing, and the witnesses have answered the question, is this narrows down to one airport and, conceivably, one tender and that is that. Moreover, I believe this will be the case. Respectfully, I believe the witnesses should gear their minds towards that eventuality, as opposed to fighting it. That really is the situation towards which we are heading and the Government must accept it. This is important and this entire affair has taught us we must be realistic with regard to the service under discussion and should just deal with it and make a decision. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is made up of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, as well as Martin Fraser, myself, Seán Ó Foghlú and Niall Cody. It is comprised of four civil servants and four politicians and then we have three external people plus the chair of the Top Level Appointments Commission, TLAC.

Mr. Robert Watt:

The Chairman will embarrass me now.

Mr. Robert Watt:

They are Bernie Gray, Paul Farrell, Shane Bissett and Dorothy Scally.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We went through the Public Appointment Service's stateboards.ieprocess and asked for people with experience in assisting in the running of large organisations who had managerial experience and who had an interest in public policy and in government. Primarily, it was for experience and the people we have are very experienced in their fields. Their curricula vitae probably are available on our website. I am sure they are there.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is the Secretaries General of the Departments of the Government, as well as the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, the chief executive officer of the public appointment service-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

No. That is the Civil Service Management Board. That is our own business.

Mr. Robert Watt:

This was drafted in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We had a lot of discussion within our Department and across the Civil Service and then it went out to consultation. We had a consultation process in which we invited people to give their views on whether the standard was adequate and sufficient and whether we were covering all the different items that ought to be included.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, it was external consultation. We put it out to external consultation and invited people to comment. We got back a reasonable number of comments from people who would be interested in this such as accountancy bodies, auditing bodies and others with an interest in this because as the Chairman is aware, there has been a concern in the past about some of the governance failures and some of the issues that arose about management teams that were not working properly, about how ICT was being used and so on. The Civil Service now has a common standard and by next year, each Department must come up with its own governance framework that is consistent with and has all the different elements that are in the common standard.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Certainly, in our Department we are fairly open to external people and to being challenged. There has been a sea change in recent years in how we engage with people. We have published a consultation document that sets out the principles and we have open policy debates. We have had 18 open policy debates since the Civil Service renewal plan was launched in which we have stated what is our policy issue and have invited outsiders, that is, external people, to give a view and work with us on policy.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Certainly, when it comes to appointments to State boards, we now have stateboards.ie, which is a process run by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, where the focus is on the job, the competencies and the people and we now are seeing people coming forward who never would have been in a position to get an appointment on a board based on the previous system. Consequently, when it comes to much greater external involvement, many more people are coming in now and coming forward because they perceive that the process is based on one's ability and is a meritocratic process.

The governance framework provides that the management board is made up of people in the Department, as well as the press officer and press advisers, but one issue about management boards and Departments about which there has been debate is whether there should be non-executive directors on the management boards of Departments, as has been tried in the United Kingdom. We will return to this issue of whether it would help were external people to sit on management boards and work with the Secretary General, the Assistant Secretaries and the management team. It is something we have not yet embraced but it is happening in the United Kingdom. The results are a little mixed, depending on the Department, but it is something to which we may well return.

Mr. Robert Watt:

In respect of the Votes that relate to shared services, there was a programme within the PeoplePoint transaction with HR and in payroll, where we are transitioning people. We had a profile of transitioning, so we had a work programme. In respect of payroll, we had people who were providing payroll in the Department who are now being consolidated in one of the three centres that we have. The pace of transitioning into services was slower than we had anticipated when we drew up the Estimate. The money is spent elsewhere in the system but it is just not spent on our Vote. That explains the underspend in respect of shared services.

A significant amount of capital was allocated within financial management shared services, which is a start-up project. The Comptroller and Auditor General is aware that we are taking our time with this. It is very important that we get it right. We cannot have accounts that are 95% or 99% correct. The Comptroller and Auditor General will be happy with that. We are trying to make sure that when we move to this integrated financial management system, everything is on board. It has taken us longer to draw up the specs and review the tenders, so we had a capital allocation for 2014 and 2015 and we have not drawn down all of it as much. It is about the pace of some of these change programmes. We set ourselves ambitious targets but we just did not deliver as quickly and we took our time. That means that we must surrender the money. Of course, we would have to spend this money in the future on the capital side of the programme-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Back into the Exchequer.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Regarding the issuing of the money-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is €1.3 million.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is independent in its functions but it reports to our Department.

Mr. Robert Watt:

A global revaluation has taken place. On this occasion the rateable value has come down, so there is a loss of income of €22 million, as the Chairman noted. It would be worth exploring what would have happened if the revaluation had gone the other way and had increased the receipts to local government. Would local government then have sent that money back and reduced the allocation from the centre? I am just posing this as a question, because it can go both ways. We do these revaluations and it can go the other way. We have had revaluations in the past after which the income was the same. I am interested in whether I would be asked this question if it went the other way. There is a shortfall, so the options are for local authorities to reduce their services, increase their property tax or rates, or come to the Government looking for money. They are the three options, so I think I know which option they are going to go for.

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, they would not.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It did go the other way.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Upwards of €22 million.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Out of a spend of €5 billion.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is right.

Mr. Robert Watt:

This is a policy issue which I have no doubt is being considered in terms of what the response is. I have a personal view that I keep to myself, but some decision will be taken on this.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Option four was coming to the Government and asking for more money.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is option three. I find that this is the option people always go for. So one can cut spending, increase rates in Waterford-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt mentioned property tax as well.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Property tax or-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So option four was-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

Sorry, yes. There are two categories within two of the options. One can then ask the Government for money.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is well flagged. County managers are lobbying the likes of me about this, so Mr. Watt knows about it. Is there a view within the Department about local authorities asking for money to make up the shortfall?

Mr. Robert Watt:

We do have a view. My view may be different from that of the Minister. I think the Minister-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us assume that Mr. Watt is more important than the Minister.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is the wrong assumption by some distance. In my experience, it is quite the opposite.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is my assumption, but go ahead.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is a policy question.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will not be around in a few months, but Mr. Watt will be.

Mr. Robert Watt:

He will still be around in a few months' time.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not mean that. I mean that he may not be a Minister, so Mr. Watt-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think it-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt's opinion is actually more important. I am not trying to be funny.

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think it will take that long for a policy decision to be made here, but we shall see. The Minister is aware of it and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt cannot give us his personal view, generally speaking?

Mr. Robert Watt:

I do not think I should give my personal opinion.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is a policy matter. The Deputy can guess what my personal view is, can he not?

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid I-----

Mr. Robert Watt:

The Deputy probably can. Local authority independence comes with consequences.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, you abolished town councils.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is not the grown-up-----

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a substantive point. The Department issued a report on local government relatively recently and we discussed it the last time Mr. Watt appeared before the committee. We talked about the provision of services at a local level. The Department is dealing with that on an ongoing basis. The point that I and possibly others have made was whether a deficit exists after the abolition of town councils and whether this is being surveyed and monitored on an ongoing basis to see their grade and the level of services that exist now as opposed to previously. Has the Department done any work on that?

Mr. Robert Watt:

No, not since that discussion took place. The Minister has his view and I think he expressed it previously in the House. I am sure the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government also has a view. I am sure everybody has a view on that local government reform, but no doubt we will return to it.

Mr. Paul Quinn:

Yes, it is. We now have a framework contract for the procurement of legal services. Again, it is a co-ordination issue. We are not getting value for money and need to pursue this issue.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Internal auditing.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Okay.

Mr. Robert Watt:

We have got to a stage where different parties are happy that what is being procured and the specification will do the job. It has taken a long time to get to a place where we are actually happy. The timeframe and sequencing were very convoluted, but I am sure they were set out for a reason - to ensure we did not fall over. Those concerned are starting with a number of regions or consolidating a number of regions and will then roll out the system. It is certainly a matter we will pursue with the HSE. In the absence of an integrated system, I agree that it is very difficult to monitor expenditure and for management to discharge its functions. What is proposed is really needed. However, we do not want to fall over half way through, as happened in the past when it turned out that the system did not function. Certainly, we can take up the issue. Perhaps Mr. Quinn might talk to those concerned and determine whether we can make progress. We support the HSE as best we can and will continue to do so.

Mr. Robert Watt:

That is true.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two sides to the issue. I am not disagreeing with what the Chairman said, but I have referred to this committee as the epicentre of parliamentary hyperbole. I am not referring to the Chairman in that regard, but on occasion the committee acts in the way I have described. Sometimes members let outrage flutter around the room like confetti. It is the case that they make a meal of some witnesses from some Departments and of issues raised here. In the past four years I have seen this trend among certain members. While I take the Chairman's point on the expenditure of billions of euro, at the same time we need to face up to the fact that it is sometimes dealt with by some members as a form of theatre. It is done for publicity reasons, not really for substantive reasons on occasion. We have to face up to that fact, too, and it needs to be mentioned, as it is a fair point.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is that it can go too far.

Mr. Robert Watt:

It is an issue that is worthy of discussion. Public scrutiny is critical and, as Deputies noted, this committee is at the centre of that. The public has a right to know how its money is being spent and, to that end, these types of formats are vital. However, we must bear in mind that while we have had a reasonable debate here for three and a half hours, only a small snippet of that will be covered in the media and it will not necessarily reflect the discussion that took place. We might be used to all of this, but a lot of people out there just hear the noise and not necessarily all the discussion. In a private organisation or even a large public company, the types of debates we might have around accountability and spending happen within a certain setting. On the other hand, discussions here take place in a public setting. All I am saying is that we need to be aware of what that actually means. While it is the nature of the system, as the Chairman observed, people outside look at it in a different way from how we look at it. For some people on the outside looking in, what goes on here is a very unattractive dimension of certain roles. It does not bother me because I know about the nature of it, but for some people outside who may be thinking of a career in the public sector, it could be factor. The Chairman may be right that there is nothing we can do about it, but we should keep in mind the tone of the engagement. This is not a reflection of my own experience of engaging with the Chairman and members of this committee. If I had a problem with the committee, I would have told the Chairman. In fact, I have never had a problem. However, there have been occasions where the tone of the debate - not necessarily here, but in other parliamentary fora - is such that it is a real turn-off for people. The Chairman might discount it but it really can serve to put people off. That is just the way it is.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Yes, and the conversation has to happen. It is key.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Sure.

Mr. Robert Watt:

Absolutely. I wish the Chairman and members all the best.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Watt is probably thinking, "It is over, thank God."