Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32019/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
National Economic and Social Development Office.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Development Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32020/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work of the national centre for partnership. [33213/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Development Office. [33214/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent 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. [34604/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Development Office. [34605/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the costs to his Department of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1383/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office. [1384/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1471/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
The priorities of NESDO for the coming year are to promote complementary programmes of research, analysis and discussion by its constituent bodies, the NESC, NESF and NCPP, and to continue to provide shared administration and support services for those three bodies in order to obtain best possible value for money. It will submit reports, recommendations and conclusions by any or all of the constituent bodies to Government and arrange for their publication.
The NCPP continues to promote and provide support for change and innovation in our workplaces. Much of the recent focus has been on finalising the report of the forum on the workplace of the future, which we established on foot of a commitment in our programme for Government. The forum has been deliberating on how companies and organisations can best anticipate and adapt to change, how we can meet the needs of a changing workforce and how we can reshape our framework of policies and support structures to assist and stimulate workplace modernisation. The forum represents an unprecedented and comprehensive examination of our workplaces to create a vision of how those workplaces should develop to cope with the competitive and social challenges ahead.
It is hoped that this work, involving the collective efforts of Government, the social partners, State agencies, employers and employees, as well as national and international experts, will be brought to a conclusion over the coming weeks. The report will be presented to the Government prior to publication.
In addition to promoting implementation of the forum's recommendations, the centre will implement commitments contained in Sustaining Progress and the mid-term review of part two of Sustaining Progress, Pay and the Workplace. These include finalising of guidelines on employee financial involvement; the completion of a project to improve practices and procedures with regard to information and consultation in the context of the EU directive on information and consultation; and a project aimed at maximising the potential of enterprise partnership as a method of promoting workplace learning.
The costs which have accrued to my Department in respect of the NCPP since its establishment in 2001 up to the end of 2004 are just over €3.37 million. A provision of €1.041 million has been made to cover the centre's costs for this year.
Regarding the NESC, it recently completed its report, Housing in Ireland: Performance and Policy, published in December 2004. The council is completing a study entitled, the Developmental Welfare State. In the coming months, it will complete a report on the Lisbon strategy, focusing on the open method of co-ordination. The council will also undertake its three yearly strategic overview of economic and social policy, paving the way to negotiations on a successor to Sustaining Progress.
Other studies in the council's work programme include: migration policy; child poverty and child income supports; Ireland's first periodic social report; the taxation system in the medium term; competition and regulation in networked sectors; and a report on the innovation foresight.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. One of the central reasons for setting up this kind of operation was to avoid industrial disputes where possible. Given the strong possibility of a serious postal strike, will the appropriate body be called together to stave off such a strike if that is possible, given that is part of its remit? If so, when will that happen?
The national implementation body, if it has not done so already, is proceeding to ask An Post to go back to the Labour Court in relation to the reintegration of SDS into the company. I have a note, which states that the implementation body has met and has considered the difficulties in An Post in relation to SDS. It has called on both parties to suspend industrial actions and to lift the suspensions in order to allow progress to be made at the Labour Court on 11 February in respect of SDS reintegration.
Does the Taoiseach support that call?
Hopefully, that will be responded to positively so they can go to the court and, in that case, avoid the industrial dispute.
Did I hear the Taoiseach correctly that it is to make the call this evening?
I do not have a time. I spoke to the relevant officials at lunchtime and at that stage, they had set about having a meeting with the national implementation body. The statement I have here is either being issued, or will be issued shortly.
I welcome that information from the Taoiseach but I am sure he will agree that, to some extent, the damage has been done and we are shutting the door after the horse has bolted in the case of An Post. My question relates to the national centre for partnership and performance. Is there not a problem here in so much as the national centre for partnership and performance seems to concern itself with abstract work organisation issues and abstruse academic questions which are important but that when it comes to providing any hands on support in terms of implementation of these decisions in the workplace, as is so badly needed in An Post, it is not seen to happen? The national implementation body will now find itself seized of a management decision to shut down SDS and it is being asked to unravel that after 63 people have been laid off and the decision has been made.
I understand how there might be problems nowadays with the number of pieces of mail going through the system given electronic mail and so on. However, I find it very difficult to understand how there is a problem of viability with a company dealing with the distribution of packages. One cannot send a package by e-mail yet in my constituency that plant has been shut down because it is, in the belief of the unions, a very valuable site to be sold off. The national implementation body is supposed to wave a magic wand and prevent what ultimately looks like being a total close down of the postal service.
It would have been better if management and unions had resolved all these issues in advance and had looked at some of the best practice of the national centre for partnership and performance. The national implementation body works out of my Department, or at least it is engaged by my Department under social progress. It engages itself in many disputes but does not get into the issues of disputes.
The NCPP is not the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission or the conciliation service but it has been trying to research best practice — partially academically, I accept — and to identify practical approaches which further develop workplace partnerships with particular regard to the contribution of employee enterprises and enterprise participation, workplace learning and all of the other matters in which it is engaged. I think Deputy Rabbitte would agree that, in many companies — often more so in the private sector than in the State sector — there are very good partnership models which operate very well. NCPP has been trying to develop successfully with few resources and few staff, good case studies which can help in those issues. In the few years it has been operating, it has been doing that. It does not, of course, solve all problems but it has a number of very significant work cases.
In regard to An Post, the Minister has spent much time in the past few months engaging with the staff and the unions and trying to engage them in terms of the Labour Court to try to resolve many of the outstanding industrial relations issues. It has been quite difficult for several months. I am not involved in it on a day to day basis but from what I know of it, both sides could do with working together a bit better rather than trying to jump each other. I hope they can respond to the national implementation body and go to the Labour Court to try to resolve these issues because they all have a vested interest in turning their company around, trying to explore what ends of the market are viable for it and getting on with it. Being involved in industrial disputes damages them.
One of the questions I asked was on the National Social and Development Office and its work. Is that office carrying out any research in the area of poverty or social exclusion? One in seven children are consistently poor which is a worrying statistic. Is the Taoiseach aware of work being done to investigate why that level of consistent poverty is so bad with one in ten being the average overall? One can answer that Ireland has half the level of social protection expenditure as Sweden but I would like to know whether there is further work to be done in that area and whether the Government will heed it.
The national centre for partnership and performance recently produced some interesting statistics. I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the NCPP's supporting gender equality in Ireland report produced last year. There is a gender pay gap of 15% and women are 50% less likely to receive performance related pay. Will that result in the Government making any effort or putting specific measures in place to address that? The report by the same organisation on the workplace of the future highlights that the largest number of case files now before the Equality Authority concern racism in the workplace. On that basis, has any effort been made to address the distinct disadvantage for people coming to this country where their second and third level qualifications are not recognised and where they find themselves in a lower grade of employment than their qualifications would otherwise deserve? Will the Taoiseach address that matter given the need for migrant workers and the potential to take up their skills? When one hears of people being deported, for example trainee nurses in one case of which I am aware, does it not point to the fact we need an immigration policy which goes beyond refugee status and humanitarian considerations? The office seems to be pointing in that direction as well.
The national action programme on racism will be launched tomorrow. It is a plan for the future on which work has been done for some considerable time. The fourth periodic report of the National Economic and Social Forum was published in November. It reviews the work published by the forum and covers a number of issues, including lone parents, the reintegration of prisoners, equality issues, early school leavers and equity of access to hospital care. It notes the progress made in these areas and welcomes the establishment of the new institutions. It goes on to state that it will continue to work on some other aspects. I do not have all the details but it is continuing work in the social exclusion area.
On the forum on the workplace of the future, work on that has gone on for the past 18 months or so. The mid-term review of part two of Sustaining Progress commits the NCPP to find practical approaches to further develop workplace partnerships with particular regard to the contribution of enterprise partnership to workplace learning. The centre is working on the finalisation of agreed guidelines and different forms of employee financial involvement. That work is carried out by IBEC and ICTU and is expected to conclude this year. The NCPP continues to research case studies in other sectors and all the studies are available on the centre's website. The NCPP continues work in other areas such as a case study on current practice regarding the EU directive on information and consultation and different step-by-step procedures on that directive. The centre is also developing a second phase involving seminars on employer and trade union issues and initiatives in an entire range of areas. Overall, therefore, the NCPP has a major work programme, with elements either under way or in progress.
I wish to mention two other projects. The learning organisation project, developed in conjunction with FÁS, entails using a partnership approach for training and organisation learning to ensure that employers and employees develop the skills necessary for future success. This project is ongoing in 14 private and public sector workplaces. Finally, the joint partnership training modules project is an ICTU-IBEC initiative which involves the NCPP working with a number of companies to implement the associated training modules. All these programmes are either ongoing or form part of the work programme for the current year.
What will the Government do about these reports?
Deputy Sargent has had the opportunity to speak. Deputy Ó Caoláin may address a question to the Taoiseach.
Will measures be taken to respond to them or will they just sit on a shelf?
Most of the work undertaken by the NCPP and the Forum on the Workplace of the Future involves active engagement with ICTU, IBEC and FÁS in the implementation of reports. The NCPP is an academic initiative in terms of research but it is also actively involved in implementation with the co-operation of trade unions and employers. Membership of the centre is comprised of trade unionists.
Is the Government involved?
The Government provides the funding.
As the Taoiseach advised in his reply, the NCPP, in conjunction with IBEC and ICTU, has developed a revised partnership training programme that is quite specifically targeted at unionised private sector organisations that wish to develop a partnership approach to change and to improve performances. Has the Taoiseach asked the centre to address the issue of the growing number of non-unionised workplaces? Does he agree it would be appropriate to examine this issue, particularly in the context of partnership, given that the right to trade union recognition, membership and representation is critical? Does it not suggest itself to the Taoiseach that it is an issue for the centre to address? In the final analysis, it is perhaps incumbent on this House to consider legislation to make it a requirement of workplaces to recognise the right of employees to join and participate within a trade union organisation.
My second question relates to the fourth periodic report of the National Social and Economic Development Office on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum. This report updates the position contained in a number of its previous reports, including that covering the equality of access to hospital care. As spokesman on health and children, this is an area of particular concern to me. Does the Taoiseach agree with the NESF in its statement that what is now required is a fundamental examination of the public-private mix in hospitals and that it is this mix and the piggybacking by the private sector on the public hospitals' acute services provision which has created what is tantamount to a two-tier system in acute hospital services? The report points up the urgent need to address this imbalance. This brings in the consultants' contracts and all the other issues the Government must address.
A detailed question on this issue to the Minister for Health and Children might be more appropriate.
I thank the Taoiseach for his replies.
On the Deputy's first question, although the NCPP and all these other organisations are working under the umbrella of social partnership and their work is available to all, it is correct that they are not as actively involved in non-unionised workplaces. The NCPP always makes its case studies, data and models available to such workplaces. However, a difficulty arises if it is not invited to do so and there is no umbrella mechanism. I have no doubt that some of the work done by the centre would be useful in these areas but there is no way of forcing that into private sector areas in which there is no involvement. However, IBEC, the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and others, even where workplaces are non-unionised, use case study reports. I will ask the NCPP what it can do to engage in areas in which it may meet an unhelpful response.
Will the Taoiseach report back to me on this issue?
Yes. The Deputy's second question relates to the report of the National Social and Economic Development Office which sets out recommendations for developments in the health area. Most of the issues mentioned by the Deputy, including that of the common contract, are matters that are either under way or under discussion. The report points out the importance of seeking resolutions to these issues and that is recognised by the Department of Health and Children.
The NESF has a somewhat limited role in its ongoing work of researching different sectors. In the report mentioned by the Deputy, the NESF launched a set of health service case studies demonstrating how change has been managed successfully through partnership in an attempt to encourage the health sector to utilise the findings of these studies. Similar case studies have been undertaken on the local government and education sectors but Deputy Ó Caoláin's question related to health. The NESF has made these reports available and they are useful in terms of change implementation although they do not supersede the change incorporated in the Government's agenda. Issues such as that of the common contract are being considered by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children.
The Taoiseach has not dealt with Question No. 9 to any extent. What studies can we expect from the National Economic and Social Council? Will the Taoiseach confirm that reports will be issued on the issues of housing and child care? If so, can he say anything to the House about the likely conclusions on the subject of child care?
The NESC report on housing was published before Christmas. It has issued a number of reports, including those entitled Creating a More Inclusive Labour Market, Care of Older People and Early Education, all of which deal with topics that were selected as priorities. It has begun work on studies on anti-social behaviour, cultural citizenship and the delivery of public services. It is also doing some work on the national anti-poverty strategy. They are the main reports it is working on this year.
Are they all in the public domain?
The housing one was published just before——
What about the other ones to which the Taoiseach referred?
It is working on the other ones. I will send the Deputy a complete list. I believe it has published approximately six reports in the past few months. I will get the Deputy the list.
Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during November 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32021/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during 2004; the number of these which were granted; the fees received by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34091/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during 2004; the way in which this compares with 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34606/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
All requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with both the 1997 Act and the 2003 Act and their implementation is kept under constant review.
A total of 45 requests were received last year, one of them in November, compared to 142 requests received in the previous year. Some 24 of the 45 were granted in whole or in part. In the case of nine requests, there were no records. Two other requests were transferred to other Departments and three requests were withdrawn. A total of seven requests were refused during the year. My Department received €525 in fees for the whole of 2004. Further information is set out in the following two tables.
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
February |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
March |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
April |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
May |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
June |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
July |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
August |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
September |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
November |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Received |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
January |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
February |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
March |
30 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
May |
11 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
|
June |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
July* |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
August |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
September |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
October |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
November |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
December |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
* fees introduced
The Taoiseach is probably tired of answering this question. This is probably the eighth or tenth time he has answered a question on freedom of information. Were the seven requests refused because they were not relevant to the Department of the Taoiseach or was the information sought too sensitive? Have personnel in the Department of the Taoiseach taken cognisance of the repeated comments by the Information Commissioner that the restrictions introduced by the previous Minister, Mr. McCreevy, have seriously reduced the numbers of requests being made and thereby diminish the rights of people to have as complete information as possible? Given that we now have a new Minister for Finance, reflecting more equitably the Taoiseach's socialist philosophy, are changes to those restrictions likely?
As I stated before, a fee of €15 for making an FOI request when the cost is in the region of €425 cannot be considered a major deterrent to responsible use of the Act and is modest in terms of the administration of the service. The Minister for Finance is responsible and I am not aware of any proposals he has for making changes. The seven requests were probably ones where no information existed. Even if partial information existed we would have replied to them. I do not have the information on them, but I presume there was no information or they were not relevant to my Department. If that is not correct I will inform the Deputy.
The Taoiseach often argues that the fees charged do not represent a deterrent to people making freedom of information requests. How can he explain the 139——
The questions refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I know they do, but I am referring to the Taoiseach's argument and I thought he would be the best person to answer a question on his own argument. On the basis of the number of requests reducing from 139 in 2003 to 45 in 2004, I thought he would explain such a reduction if it had nothing to do with the fees.
In reply to a parliamentary question in November, the Taoiseach said he had received 40 requests of which 20 were granted and no records were held in respect of nine. Are they explained in some official term as relating to matters for which no records existed because they had never existed or have the records gone missing? Is sanction applied in cases where information is sought and the records are mysteriously missing? This happens at county council level, where letters on a planning file may go missing. It has happened very seriously in the case of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital where patients looked for their records, many of which had gone missing or were tampered with. Does sanction exist under the legislation or elsewhere to prevent the spiriting away of records for fear they might be sought?
I am almost certain it is a case of no records existing, and I have not seen any such cases. Sometimes maybe the records are incomplete. It is taken very seriously in Departments if records go missing and immediately detailed searches take place. Most FOI requests relate to current information and do not go back years requiring officials to go to storage boxes. Normally there is no difficulty on FOI with available information and I am sure that is the case here with the nine cases for which no information exists. There is no file and there are no data. It is not a case of mislaid data.
While the €15 fee is one matter, does the Taoiseach agree inconsistencies exist in the charging for searches and other fees across all Departments?
I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the Minister for Finance, who has responsibility for the Act. The questions to the Taoiseach refer specifically to his Department.
I accept the point. Does the Taoiseach believe there is total consistency within his Department regarding when fees for searching are charged? They should either be charged in all cases or in none. Is there a consistency of application of the rules in the Department of the Taoiseach?
Overall guidelines are set down. Liaison takes place between the information officers in each Department. In my Department the officials follow those rules. The amount of money taken in by my Department for the whole year was €525. In all cases a genuine effort is made even with historical records, which are not requested as frequently now. The figures were high early on because people were going back on many of the historical records over many years. Those requests were declining before changes were made. The Departments make an effort to deliver as comprehensively as possible the information the person seeks. That is done in a way that is as cheap as possible for the individuals. While there is a modest fee, the whole programme is designed not to put a burden on the individual seeking the information.
I accept what the Taoiseach says from his experience, but can he confirm that is always the case in every application in his Department or are there exceptions when a search fee is charged? If so, on what grounds is that fee applied?
To the best of my knowledge, this might happen if an individual case had an enormous impact on time. Perhaps not last year but in the previous year we had a few such requests, but people are charged the same fee. I do not think they are charged a higher fee. I am not positive about that, but that applies in my Department. Some Departments may need to do considerable searching and gathering of information, but to the best of my knowledge in my Department the fee is static and no additional fee is applied, which was the Deputy's question.
What does the Taoiseach mean that a very serious view is taken of records that might be discovered to be missing following a freedom of information request? Is that a matter that results in action or is it simply noted? What action would be possible if it was found that somebody had taken or destroyed a file?
Under Civil Service code such a matter would be subject to disciplinary action. Apart from FOI, regarding anything——
Has it ever happened?
Certainly not under FOI. Over the years there have been cases of files having been mislaid in Departments, about which quite serious action was taken. I remember one Department in which I was a Minister where such problems existed.
Ministerial Transport.
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for the use of the Government jet and other Air Corps aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32022/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the procedures in his Department for the use of the Government jet and other Air Corps aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34607/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place for the use of Government aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1385/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.
The procedures I have outlined to the House previously, most recently on 25 November 2003, are unchanged. Use of the ministerial air transport service requires my approval. Procedurally, requests for use of the service are made by Ministers' private secretaries to my office and are dealt with by the staff of my office. Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need and purpose of travel, the destination and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at this point. All screened requests are then submitted to me for approval. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister and the Department of Defence or Air Corps.
I assume the Taoiseach was unable to bring all 300 delegates with him in the jet when he travelled to China. The jet was used often in the last year because of the EU Presidency. Will the Taoiseach circulate a list of the approved uses of the Government jet in the last 12 months? Is the jet currently in use the only jet transport available to the Government? Has the Beechcraft been disposed of? Is the larger Government jet still available?
Does it have a puncture?
The Taoiseach is probably the most famous socialist to have visited China in recent years.
He was the only one out there.
Travelling in the smallest jet. So small that we are always last in the queue to take off.
The Beechcraft has been replaced by the Learjet to provide the ministerial air service. It is now mainly used by the Air Corps and would only be used for ministerial travel if nothing else was available and normally for local flights within the State. Some of my colleagues must use it to travel to Brussels on occasion.
Such hardship.
It takes a while to get there, it is quite a hardship.
The Learjet carried out 78 missions, mainly to various European locations during the Presidency. The Gulfstream IV is still in operation.
So impressed was the Taoiseach with his Chinese visit, I was surprised that he did not declare himself a communist when he returned, following his recent transformation into a socialist.
Does the Government take stock of the impact of the carbon emissions from the jet? It is within the Taoiseach's remit so it could be done. Is the jet used within Ireland from time to time? What sort of journey would it make within the State, given that there are now plenty of roads and opportunities to travel by rail? Is there any need to use the jet within Ireland?
I am not directly involved but I am sure the Minister for Defence and the Air Corps follow the highest environmental standards. The jet is rarely used within the State. The Beechcraft is usually used on short flights. The Gulfstream is used for long flights and, increasingly, we use the Learjet on the Brussels route. It is effective for short haul flights.
Does the Taoiseach know the annual running costs of the Government jets, the Learjet in particular? Is a value for money audit carried out into the annual running costs and the repayment schedule attached to it? Is the audit taken into account in determining the criteria for use of the jet?
I do not have the figures, the Department of Defence has them, but the service offers value for money and is efficient. Where easy alternatives are available, it is not used. Each case is screened to ensure it makes sense. Effort is always made to get Ministers to travel together to make it more cost effective. It is also useful to the Air Corps when it is not being used by the Government.
Is there a value for money audit?
The service has been looked at a number of times and it has been found to provide an efficient and cost effective service.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.