Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if there are changes to the plans he has for constitutional referendums during 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29092/07]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Constitutional Amendments.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if there are any changes to the constitutional referendums he intends holding during 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30762/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if referendums to amend the Constitution will be held in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30966/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2007 was published in February 2007. The June 2007 programme for Government included a commitment to establish an all-party committee to examine the proposed constitutional amendment with a view to further deepening consensus on this matter.
In October, the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brendan Smith, brought a memorandum to Government proposing the establishment of a joint committee to deal with the constitutional amendment on children. Following consultations with Opposition parties on the terms of reference, the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was established by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas in November last. The first meeting of this committee took place on 6 December, when Deputy O'Rourke was elected chairman of the committee.
The text of the EU reform treaty was agreed at the informal European Council in October in accordance with the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Conference on the Reform Treaty at the June European Council. We can now look forward to the signature of the treaty in Lisbon on 13 December. As I have said previously, while no decision has yet been taken, I expect that we will hold a referendum sometime next year, probably in the summer.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention to hold the two referendums, the referendum on children and the referendum on the EU treaty, on the same date? Are there any other plans to hold constitutional referendums in 2008? I noted the comments made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, on reform of the Seanad which I understand would require changes to the Constitution. Is it intended to bring forward proposals for constitutional change in that area? We have had approximately ten reports from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution since 1997. How many of the recommendations for constitutional change made by that committee have been progressed? Is it intended to progress any of them in 2008?
On the first question, my preference, although it is not a strong one, is to hold the two referendums on the one day. The reason for this is that we all gave a commitment. At the beginning of the year the party leaders gave a commitment to the NGOs and those associated with the children's issue that we would hold the referendum within one year, if it was possible to do so, but it may not be. The members of the all-party committee are unanimous in the view that they need until the end of April or the other side of Easter to complete their work. A referendum Bill will then be required. We will have to see whether it is possible to link the two referendums.
After this week we will have a commitment to deal with the EU reform treaty by 1 January 2009. I will get formal advice from the Attorney General. It is obvious that there will have to be a referendum. We will talk to the Opposition leaders to see how the matter can be progressed. I think we will deal with the two issues together, as we have all given a commitment to the children's NGO group that we would hold that referendum within one year. We are also committed to dealing with the EU reform treaty by 2009.
I have no other proposals to be dealt with in the short term and, therefore, do not expect any other referendum to be held in 2008. The Seanad issue has been outstanding for some time. If I recall correctly, a number of things can be done without holding a referendum. For example, we could deal with the issue of the university panels. A referendum was held on the issue approximately 20 years ago, but the decision was never implemented. A referendum has been held to allow us deal with the graduate electoral panel. A number of other issues do not require a referendum to be held.
I have extensive data for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, usually the subject of a separate question. A number of issues raised by the committee have either been dealt with by referendum or legislation. There are others, on which, for one reason or another, different resolutions were made. I would rather deal with the committee as the subject of a separate question when we would have extensive reports from Departments and the various conclusions of the committee would be dealt with across Departments.
Some matters arise from the Taoiseach's reply. While I understand the Taoiseach's preference is to hold the referendums on children and the EU reform treaty on the same day, do I take it that this is now unlikely to happen, given the timetable the committee has set for itself?
Second, is there still some doubt about whether a referendum is required on the EU treaty? Do I understand from the Taoiseach's comment that he has not yet received the formal advice of the Attorney General in respect of the EU treaty and that there is still some element of doubt about whether there will be a referendum on it?
I would like to ask the Taoiseach about Seanad reform. He mentioned that well over 20 years have passed since we had a referendum on the university panels. In light of the outcome of that referendum and the recent comments of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, about extending university panel voting rights to all third level graduates, is it not time to consider the idea of universal suffrage for the election of the Seanad? It seems elitist and unnecessary in the modern age to give certain voting rights exclusively to graduates of universities and their equivalents without extending those rights to the entire population. A large proportion of the population would be entitled to vote in Seanad elections if the university franchise were to be extended to all graduates, whereas a small and exclusive minority of the population went to university in 1937. Would it not be better for the health of our democracy to elect the Seanad by universal suffrage, rather than by the archaic 1930s methods currently used? As those methods draw on some of the political thinking of the 1930s, they would be more appropriately confined to the history books than retained as the way we elect one of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
A constitutional referendum would definitely be needed to reform the Seanad in such a broad manner. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, said recently that certain reforms could be made on foot of the referendum that took place some years ago. A referendum would not be needed to allow the large proportion of people under the age of 35 who are graduates to vote in Seanad elections. Many of the reforms mentioned by the Minister, including some of the changes recommended by the committee chaired in the last Dáil by the former Minister, Deputy Roche, can be made without referendums. While we could make a number of reforms in that way, if we were to change the entire system we would definitely need a referendum, which would probably push this matter down the agenda for a considerable number of years. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, said he was examining the possibility of opening up the university panel system, which could be done in the short term.
Regarding the Deputy's first question, it is still possible that the two referendums will be held on the same day. It might mean changing the timescale slightly, but it is possible. I will discuss the matter with the party leaders to see what can be done. It might not be possible to have both referendums in May, but it is still possible to have them on the same day. We can discuss the matter. I have an open mind on it — I do not really mind which way we do it. Did the Deputy ask a third question?
I asked whether there is any doubt about the need for a referendum on the EU treaty.
There is no doubt about that.
No doubt at all.
There is no doubt about it. I have not got the formal advice. We could not refer the treaty to the Attorney General until we got the final text. Having examined the preliminary draft, the Attorney General advised me that a number of aspects of it clearly necessitate a referendum. There is no doubt about it — we will require a referendum.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach three questions. I will be happy to speak to him about his views on fixing a timescale for this process. It is important that we get a fix on it. It will be difficult for the committee to do its work within a tight timescale. I am not sure it will be able to produce a report, a wording for the referendum and legislation to give effect to the referendum by May or June. The committee will do its work constructively, obviously. People might prefer to have the referendum in May. The Government needs to decide whether to have the two referendums separately or together. If the Taoiseach informs the committee that it is his intention to hold the two referendums together, the attention of the committee can be focused on doing its work so that the Bill and the wording can be quickly drafted and approved. Alternatively, if the referendum is to be held on its own as a single issue of EU reform, the Government should decide whether to hold it before or after the summer. I would like to know this because Fine Gael, in its strong support for the EU reform treaty, wishes to lay out a work schedule for the referendum campaign, including public meetings, information seminars and dissemination of facts, without it being wasted by being held too early in the year. I am sure the Taoiseach can understand my concern in this regard.
Complacency and confusion are the two great enemies of the EU reform treaty. I would not underestimate the scale of the challenge that faces everybody who supports the treaty in putting it to the people in such a way that they can decide for themselves on the issue of approval. Could the Taoiseach elaborate on his mindset with regard to the timing of this referendum?
The treaty is to be signed on Thursday in Lisbon. I understand from speaking to my counterparts in Brussels in the EEP grouping that a timescale will be set for the national governments to ratify the treaty. In other words, the various countries will decide for themselves the dates upon which they will ratify the treaty by parliamentary majority or parliamentary decision. I understand that they want the treaty to be ratified by a number of countries in their respective parliaments before the referendum is held in Ireland, following which it can be ratified in other countries. From the point of view of the Heads of Government, does the Taoiseach have a timescale in this regard? Have the other Government leaders been in contact with the Taoiseach indicating their views on when they would like to ratify the treaty, which will have an impact on when Ireland decides to put the case to the people?
Last week I raised the matter of the referendum on children's rights. Everybody is of the opinion that we should work assiduously in trying to obtain the best wording for this referendum. A view I articulated in Maynooth some weeks ago was that we should underpin that structure in the Constitution with a court structure dedicated to family matters. At the moment there is confusion among the District, Circuit and High Courts with regard to family law cases. These cases are often left to the end and there is no built-in mediation process. I fully appreciate that the work of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children is ongoing in conjunction with the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Smith. Would the Taoiseach support the principle of a dedicated system of family courts, employing trained judges and a mediation process, in which 80% to 90% of family law cases are dealt with before reaching the general court system, as is the case in other countries?
A referendum in its own right would be required to give constitutional authority to the work of such courts, but I do not want the Taoiseach to get the impression that I am aiming to have that referendum on the same day as the others. However, would he accept in principle that if we amend the Constitution in the matter of children's rights, we should underpin that right with a dedicated court structure focusing entirely on family law and children's issues, with trained judges and a mediation process?
Deputy Kenny asked three questions. The Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2007, which deals with the constitutional amendment on children, was published last February. It was backed by a substantial amount of work done by the then Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, with the officials and various sections of the Departments across a whole range of areas. The issue involves children's rights in the Constitution under Article 40, personal rights under Article 41, family rights under Article 42, education under Article 43, private property under Article 44 and religion under Article 45, in addition to an enormous bank of legislation, including the Children Act, the Child Care Act, the Criminal Law Act, the Offences Against the Person Act and the Education Act. The Minister undertook the work and completed it. We had a referendum Bill and long consultations with the NGOs and we would have been able to complete the work fairly quickly. I thought it was a reasonable position to be in.
For a long time we have followed the practice of trying to have consensus around constitutional amendments. It was thought desirable that we should have an all-party committee to examine the proposed constitutional amendment with a view to deepening consensus on the issue. The committee said it would need four months approximately to do that — I would like to think that it could be done quicker if the committee met twice per week instead of once per week. I urge all of its members to do so. I have said to the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, that the committee could do it in a shorter time because a huge amount of the work, including the drafting of the entire Bill, has been done. Some changes to that might be necessary but if the committee shortens the time, it would be possible for us to try to move things forward.
If people need the time, it is because it is an important job in its own right and it should not be answerable to the fact that there is an EU referendum. It is a big task. I am not directly involved in it and people must make their own considerations. However, there is no doubt that, if they go to the end of April, draft a referendum Bill, amend the current one if they change their views on some of the considerations and set it all up, a date in the summer would be very tight. I can make up my mind in two minutes, but I would rather consult the other party leaders, including Deputies Kenny, Gilmore, Ó Caoláin and others, to see what people think. I would be glad to do so. We must set out a programme for 2008 and get on with it, but I do not want to make up my view and try to push it on anyone. I listen to the points of view of others.
On the Deputy's second point, most parliaments have their own systems. We are the only country that has both processes. As I continually remind my European colleagues, while they all have parliamentary ratification, we have their system of parliamentary ratification but we must consult the people as well. Our parliamentary ratification will be done earlier than most of theirs. Some of them might move quickly. I do not see why we should not have done our parliamentary ratification by the end of the spring session of the Dáil. The date to which most of them are working is 1 January 2009. Those who have told me that they have a definite plan tend to operate more towards their parliamentary summer sessions because they will probably have it in front of their committees for some time.
As the Deputy knows, since we discussed this question on Leaders' Questions or on the Order of Business last week, the Danish Parliament has decided, having examined it thoroughly and comprehensively, that there is nothing in it that requires a referendum. It seems, therefore, that we will definitely be the only country to have a referendum. On previous examinations, the Danish Parliament was quite near to us, but this time it says there is nothing that would require a constitutional referendum. It has ruled it out 100% in 100% of cases. It will decide sometime during the summer or autumn. That is the position.
On the Deputy's last question, I do not know what it entails but anything that would protect the best interests of children, either in the Constitution or legislation, should be taken into account and I would be prepared to examine such a proposal. In the Children Court and the myriad legislative measures there is a requirement for us to tidy up these issues. Subject to what the Deputy has in mind and having it examined, I would be in favour of anything that would help to safeguard our children.
On the proposed constitutional amendment on the rights of children, has the Taoiseach noted that the initial meeting of the new Oireachtas committee took place last week and that advertisements are now being placed requesting submissions from interested parties by 31 January? The committee's deliberations on further engagement following the receipt of submissions from interested parties will have to be determined in the coming weeks but the programme of work has yet to be finalised. Has the Taoiseach noted, arising from the meeting, that all of the participant groupings, including me, representing Sinn Féin, have indicated that they want to arrive at a situation where they are all supportive of the proposition? People are approaching it in a spirit of good will and with the purpose of arriving at the best formula of words that will ensure the delivery in the Constitution of the guaranteed rights of children.
On the other matter of the commentary by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, regarding his intent to act on Seanad reform, the Taoiseach earlier said it would be ‘some considerable time' before we reached the point where we would address Seanad reform by constitutional amendment. Did the Minister discuss in any way, cursory or otherwise, his proposed signalling of his intent to act on Seanad reform? Some of the recommendations made in the report on Seanad reform, to which Deputy Gilmore referred, involving the universities would require legislation only. I am interested to hear the Taoiseach's view because I am not clear from the reply he gave to Deputy Gilmore regarding the proposed retention of the elitist system of election by university graduates whether he would be prepared to dispense with it once and for all. I concur with Deputy Gilmore's remarks in that respect. Will the Taoiseach share with us his outlook on the matter?
The other part of the proposed reform would require a referendum on an amendment of the Constitution. It is proposed that a number of Senators would be elected directly by the people using a list system in a single constituency. Has the Taoiseach discussed the matter with the Minister and is there agreement in principle between them on that element and when the referendum might be held? On the Minister's signalled intent of acting upon Seanad reform and the Taoiseach's earlier reference, where do the two meet and into what does "some considerable time" translate in real terms? If it is the case that this reform is agreed in principle between the Taoiseach and the Minister, will he take the opportunity to seriously consider instituting an all-Ireland Seanad by the establishment of a single constituency, not of 26 counties but 32? Will they consider extending the franchise to all citizens north of the Border to exercise, as they choose, their entitlement under our Constitution to participate in such an electoral process? Does the Taoiseach agree it is not beyond the gift of our Government and State to extend the franchise to citizens living outside of the jurisdiction? This is done, as the Taoiseach has noted many times, by other democracies for their citizens living abroad. In this instance, it would be Irish citizens living on the island of Ireland.
Will the Taoiseach consider this proposal as a way of advancing his own commitment to extending his party's elected role throughout the island of Ireland? Would he see this proposal as a further out working of his commitment to Six County directly elected representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas?
I acknowledge and accept the bona fides and goodwill of members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children towards achieving an agreed wording that can be put to the people in a constitutional referendum. I accept it may take some time. It wants to allow people extend their views more widely than the NGO groups did in 2006. It is a good thing but there is the time factor.
If we separate it from the EU referendum, it is unlikely it will be dealt with in 2008. If it cannot be done, it cannot be done. However, I gave a firm commitment to the NGOs — I am sure other party leaders had met them too — and promised this referendum would be dealt with by Easter 2008. If it is separated from the European issue, it will not happen in 2008. That is not a reason to rush the matter but that is the reality.
I do not want to confuse the issue of Seanad reform. There are three separate positions on Seanad reform. The power to allow all graduates to participate in Seanad elections for the university panel was passed in a referendum 20 years ago. We just never implemented the decision of that referendum.
The referendum was passed in 1979.
I appreciate the help of Deputy Hayes. It is even longer than I thought; it is nearly 30 years ago.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, was referring to that referendum in the context of Seanad reform which can be introduced.
Other reforms came from the report of the committee on Seanad reform, which Deputy Brian Hayes will recall, which we can deal with. That is also what the Minister was referring to which I support. There was an urgency in the Upper House that we undertake some of these reforms.
If we get into deeper reform and total change of the Seanad, as suggested in this House and elsewhere, it will mean a different constitutional referendum. That is not what the Minister or I stated. There may be merits in it but it would have to be examined in a separate context.
Regarding the Deputy's points about Northern Ireland and the Seanad, I have stated as Taoiseach that there are issues we would be prepared to examine in reforming the Seanad. Some of these could be introduced without a constitutional amendment while some may need one. I am still honour bound to deal with those ones that do not require a referendum and which can be done in the short term.
Our committee must report within a four-month period on the constitutional amendment on the rights of children. I sense from the Taoiseach's response that he is sceptical about the possibility of holding the referendum in 2008, but does he think it is possible, with the date for reporting back firmly in place, that the two referendums would take place on the one day? What are the limitations on holding the referendum on the Lisbon treaty during 2008?
The decision is clear. It must be held in 2008 because it must be ratified by 1 January 2009. I have not given up on holding the two referendums on the one day, if possible. We must be fair to the considerable group behind the children's referendum, which is far larger than most groups that seek our assistance. It represents organisations across communities in every part of the country, which would be disappointed if they missed the date in 2008. It is not realistic to hold a referendum in June or September, without the children's amendment, and another for that purpose in 2008. That pushes it back to 2009.
As one who is interested in the Constitution, I strongly support the EU reform treaty and underpinning children's rights in the Constitution. There will, however, be opposition to both. Most of the usual suspects will line up against any progress in Europe and no doubt some will oppose putting children's rights into the Constitution, saying that it undermines family rights. A combination of those lobbies could endanger both proposals. I caution against holding referendums on the same day although there are practical considerations such as costs.
I appreciate Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's views because he has been an eminent member of the Constitution review group for many years and I would not discount anything he says. We must make this judgment soon. Deputy O'Keeffe will agree, however, that one of the big problems surrounding EU referendums is to bring out a respectable size of electorate. We must make a call on this. The issues are beginning to crystallise quite well. We know our constitutional limitations in the EU reform treaty, which must be held in 2008, and we can be certain of that after Thursday. The committee will do all it can to complete its work but it will be a tight call for it to get its work finished and the referendum through before summer. I will try to discuss this with the party leaders before Christmas and we will make a decision then.
National Centre for Partnership.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29228/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29265/07]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30763/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Forum and its planned work programme for the first half of 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30821/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
Over the past three years, the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, has prepared reports on the following policy themes: early childhood care and education, care for older people, creating a more inclusive labour market, improving the delivery of quality public services, the arts, cultural inclusion and social cohesion and mental health and social inclusion.
In addition, the NESF has been mandated to convene meetings of the Social Inclusion Forum. This annual forum, the most recent meeting of which took place on 15 November, is designed to give those who are not directly involved in the social partnership process an opportunity to input their views and experiences on key implementation issues under the Government's national action plan for social inclusion, identify barriers and constraints to progress and how best these can be tackled, and debate policy proposals for the future.
The NESF prepares periodic reports on the impact of its work both at national and local levels. A draft report covering the work of the NESF over the period from 2003 to 2006 is at present being finalised. The NESF has recently been reconstituted and a draft work programme for the forthcoming period is under consideration by its members.
The National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, was established by the Government in 2001 to promote and facilitate partnership-led change and innovation in Irish workplaces. Through a combination of research and advocacy, the NCPP is helping to create high quality, high performance workplaces throughout the country and is thereby contributing to the Government's efforts to improve national competitiveness, enhance public services, increase standards of living and deliver a better quality of working life for employers and employees alike. The NCPP is also involved in promoting the business case for workplace partnership at enterprise level across all sectors of our economy.
The NCPP work programme focuses on the following five areas: partnership, national workplace strategy, workplace innovation fund, research and policy development and communication and information dissemination.
On 1 January the NCPP was placed on a statutory footing as part of the new National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO. NESDO's other constituent bodies are the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, and the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. What is the formal procedure for ensuring that NESF reports serve a purpose and that its recommendations are taken on board by Government in making key decisions? Will he confirm that members of the Opposition have repeatedly raised a whole series of excellent reports by the NESF that appear not to have been taken on board by the Government.
Is the Taoiseach familiar with the detail of one of the most recent reports, published by the NESF last month, a comprehensive report on mental health and social inclusion? If so, did he note it stressed the need to fully fund and implement the recommendations of the Government's mental health policy, A Vision for Change? The Taoiseach must also have noted that in last week's budget we saw again the very inadequate interim arrangement for a paltry 18 additional beds for child and adolescent mental health services. I have examined the detail of this matter with alarm that these beds will not be in facilities appropriate to children and will, therefore, be in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does the Taoiseach agree that this is alarming and that the Government's mental health policy, A Vision for Change, must be progressed in line with the recommendations underscored in last month's NESF report?
I am only using this report as an example, but has the Taoiseach noted that the NESF report contains a recommendation that would require action by him and his Department? Has the Taoiseach responded to the recommendation to establish a cross-departmental team to draw up targets, priorities and an implementation schedule for implementing A Vision for Change and dealing with social exclusion of those with mental health problems? This NESF report has a specific recommendation for the Taoiseach and his Department in this area. Will the Taoiseach outline to the House his decision on this matter? Does he intend to implement the recommendation and how soon will he act upon it?
At our party conference in Dublin at the weekend a useful suggestion was made by a representative of the Polish community that a place be reserved on the NESF for a representative of immigrant communities. Will the Taoiseach take on board the recommendation from this source and advise us of his disposition towards such a request?
All these bodies — the NCPP, the NESF and NESC — operate under the overarching body of the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO. In terms of cohesion and sharpness, is it the Taoiseach's view that there is value in having that plethora of economic groups reporting under the NESDO?
In respect of the NCPP, did the Cabinet today decide not to accept the recommendations of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector on the salaries of the Judiciary and the Cabinet in the context of no targets being set for performance?
The Taoiseach addressed a seminar of the NCPP on 29 November at which he said public service pay should neither lead nor trail the market. What decision has the Government made in respect of the proposed pay increases for the Taoiseach and his Cabinet colleagues?
In response to Deputy Ó Caoláin, NESF reports go to the individual Departments and it is for those Departments to implement the proposals, many of which were taken up in the budget last week, while many others are implemented in legislation. The NESF does a good job annually in offering broad outlines of the actions it believes should be taken on various exclusion issues and other matters. Its proposals are taken on board and regularly discussed by the Cabinet sub-committees.
The NESF report on mental health is an important document that complements the Government's mental health policy, A Vision for Change. The report recommends major changes in the way mental health issues are dealt with by employers, local authorities, trade unions and, most importantly, the health sector. The underlying emphasis is on recovery in the broadest sense rather than on an exclusively medical model. That is the argument made in the report and it is made well. Its recommendations reach beyond the health sector to highlight how mental health services should be integrated within wider non-medical supports. This recommendation was fed back into my Department and a cross-departmental group has been established to consider how this can be done.
The report looked at mental health issues in the context of employment, housing, social supports and so on. Strategically, the focus is on placing community groups in the voluntary sector at the centre of efforts to move people out of institutions and into the community. This has been ongoing to some extent since the Looking Forward report in the 1980s. The changes recommended in that report were beginning to be implemented when I was a member of the health board. This report is another step in that direction. Following its initial consideration by the Government, the report's recommendations have been referred for consideration by the relevant Department. Implementation of the individual components of A Vision for Change is a matter primarily for the HSE. In July the executive established an implementation group to ensure mental health services would be developed in a synchronised and consistent way.
Deputy Kenny's first question was on the NESDO. NESC carries out strategic analysis of the economy, bringing together all the relevant participants to plan where we are and where we should go. It has been the basis of social partnership and other reports on subjects such as the welfare society and housing. It does an entirely different job from NESF, which deals with day to day legislative changes, particularly in the areas of social inclusion and macro and micro issues.
NCPP is an entirely different organisation which is trying to bring best practice to industry in terms of how it should consult, bring in change, reform and modernise. They are three different but small organisations. The benefit of bringing the three together was to share administration, which cut down massively on cost. There was one office in one place and shared administration. That is the benefit of NESDO.
On the issue of pay, as many members of Government and I have previously stated, we have a Labour Court, a Labour Relations Commission and review bodies in different areas dealing with pay. I always take the view that this House should accept recommendations of bodies it sets up. The pay review for approximately 2,000 people in the Civil Service, semi-State bodies and the Judiciary carried out by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector should be the same.
A Government has never rejected a report by this body since it was set up 1969. The recommendations of reports have been phased in, delayed or postponed but they have never been rejected. This Government will not do so either. We believe the work was done professionally and without consultation with or reference to the Government. The body decided not to take into account the private sector because it indicated the position of Government was unrelated. However, other linkages were made in the report.
We received the report in the autumn and the Government is mindful that the November Exchequer figures were not as good as hoped. The benchmarking report is imminent and we will not know its outcome until it is finished. We are in a tighter position so taking such matters into account, it is the Government's view that to go with the phasing previously looked at perhaps would not be a reasonable thing to do.
Go back a few steps.
We have decided to rephase it, to put back the first part of it by a year and put the other part in place in 2009 and 2010. The full costs will not come on the Exchequer until 2011, which will be 11 years after the last report by the review body.
Will the Taoiseach run that by me again?
We are flattening the mountain.
We have put the cost back 11 years from the last implementation of the review body's report.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I will allow a brief point of clarification as we are ten minutes over time.
What about representation for the immigrant community on the NESF?
Did the Taoiseach——
I ask that Deputy Kenny be allowed to put his brief supplementary.
——indicate there would be no movement on the recommendations for 2008 at all for either the members of Government, the Judiciary or the other approximately 2,000 people involved? Will the phasing in be delayed until the end of 2008?
I have asked a question that has not been answered.
The way the process is carried out in the Department of Finance means the only orders which need ratification are those for the Judiciary and politicians. The increases for the Civil Service and commercial semi-State bodies went into the system after the decision was made and the personnel in question will be paid. The Government will also pass the order for the Judiciary. The only people to have their increases delayed will be the Ministers and Ministers of State.
It is Damascus-like.
Did the Taoiseach decide that today?
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach today.
It is a good example of our goodwill.
What about immigrant representatives on the NESF?
Did the Taoiseach decide that today?
Yes.
Will I receive a reply to my question?
I will come back to the Deputy because he posed a question. I ask him to be very brief.
The Taoiseach is leaving although the question has not been dealt with. I asked about the Taoiseach's consideration of representation for the immigrant community on the NESF. I take it the Taoiseach's exiting stage right is his response.
We are ten minutes over time.
This cannot be laughed away.
We will move to priority questions nominated to the Minister for Education and Science.