Vol. 609 No. 3
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the publication of the Government progress report on implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government, especially in regard to those areas for which his Department has direct responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24366/05]
2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the contents of the Government’s recently published progress report on the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24518/05]
3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total cost of the production and distribution of his Department’s progress report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24519/05]
4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing An Agreed Programme for Government. [25344/05]
5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the programme for Government, particularly as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27689/05]
6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recently published progress report on implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government. [28642/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Progress on the implementation of the Government programme is kept constantly under review. Deputies will be aware that for every full year that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been in Government, we have published an annual progress report. The third annual progress report of this current Administration was published on 25 July 2005.
The total cost of printing and publication was €665.50 which relates to the cover design services and €14,484 for translation into the Irish language. The document was printed in-house in the Department of Finance.
The progress reports set out the progress to date in implementing every single commitment in the programme for Government. It is the responsibility of each Minister to ensure that the commitments in the programme that fall within his or her portfolio are fully implemented.
The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as head of Government. As such, it is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government. It provides support to me as Taoiseach and to the Government through the Government secretariat, the Cabinet committee system and through its involvement in key policy areas and initiatives.
The current key strategic priorities of the Department are set out in its strategy statement. They include Northern Ireland, EU and international affairs, economic and social policy, social partnership, public service modernisation and the information society and e-Government.
I and the Ministers of State in my Department answer questions in the House on these issues. In all of its work, my Department works closely with other Departments and offices. Individual Ministers are answerable to the House in respect of their own specific areas of responsibility.
The key areas for which my Department is responsible in terms of An Agreed Programme for Government can be broadly summarised as follows: supporting the development and implementation of social partnership, working with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to achieve the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in all its aspects, co-ordinating the e-Government initiative to bring about an expansion in the range and quality of on-line Government services and ensuring that Ireland's key objectives in the European Union are carried forward in the context of my role as a member of the European Council.
Is the Taoiseach well satisfied with the performance of his Government as measured against the programme?
Yes.
For example, does that relate to the commitment to have 80% of taxpayers paying income tax at the standard rate?
Almost 90% of our record tax reductions went to someone other than a person who pays the top rate of tax. Therefore, we have targeted all our measures at those on lower incomes to try to improve their position. The tax rate is no longer at the extraordinary high rates of the past. It has reduced from 48% to 42%.
However, the commitment was for 80% and almost 50% are paying at the marginal or top rate.
As I have said in the past, questions of a specific nature might be addressed directly to the Minister responsible.
There will be another two budgets.
He is not able to handle specific questions.
Some €5 billion has been given back.
Earlier this year the Taoiseach told the House:
The Department of the Taoiseach derives its mandate from my role as Head of Government. As such, it is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government.
If the Taoiseach is prepared to say he is happy with the performance of his Government, how can he stand over a situation in which one in five children leave primary school with difficulties in reading and writing?
Again, Deputy——
I have quoted the Taoiseach's words: "it is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government".
The Chair has always accepted questions in a general way. Specific questions should be addressed to the line Minister. This has been the ruling of successive incumbents in this Chair.
The Taoiseach is prepared to state specifically that his Government is doing a good job. He says so on behalf of all his Ministers.
The Taoiseach answers general questions.
In the life of this Government and the previous one, thankfully the vast bulk of resources have gone into education and particularly into education for the disadvantaged. An enormous number of additional teachers, some 4,500, including 3,000 resource teachers, have been employed in our primary schools. Particularly in this Government we have targeted our measures towards education for the disadvantaged to try to help eliminate areas of disadvantage. In international criteria we hold up extremely well in most aspects of education and in our primary education in particular. There are some areas where we would like to see some improvement and that is what the whole education system is about. This is why we spend the kinds of resources we do. However, we have continually targeted this area. Allocating more money means additional teachers as that is where the whole expenditure is in education. They have been appointed to deal with disadvantage and improve the service.
How can the Taoiseach defend his Government by saying it is doing very well? For instance, the Government was found out having a liability of €2 billion for illegal charges in nursing homes. The Supreme Court struck down legislation the Government introduced.
On the last occasion when the Deputy had a list of issues he wanted to raise the Chair pointed out the questions——
I am dealing with the Taoiseach's comment that the Government is doing well.
——should be put to the Minister responsible.
How can the Taoiseach stand over and defend a Minister who he says is doing well, who introduced a system for the personnel, payroll and related systems in the Department of Health and Children, which has run amok and is completely out of control?
The Chair has ruled on these questions in the past and successive incumbents have ruled on these questions.
I am quoting the Taoiseach's words.
Questions relating to individual Departments should be addressed to the line Minister.
You are not Taoiseach yet, a Cheann Comhairle. The Taoiseach said in the House: "As such, it is involved to some degree in virtually all aspects of the work of Government".
The Deputy will appreciate that if I were to apply what the Deputy wants, everybody in the House would be entitled to answer questions for the line Minister.
That is why he is the Taoiseach, the Head of Government. It is why he is prepared to say in the House that he is involved in virtually all aspects of all the work of Government. He is quite prepared to say that the Ministers in his Government are doing well.
That is why Deputy Kenny is not Taoiseach.
We have questions for the Minister for Education and Science after this. If we were to employ Deputy Kenny's principle, there would be no need for us to have them.
The Ceann Comhairle must have been up very early this morning.
Deputy Kenny knows the Supreme Court decision on the nursing homes issue went back over many decades and successive Governments. It is a decision we must respect and legislation is being prepared to deal with the situation.
People have different views on the computer issue. It would obviously have been better if a review of the contract had taken place every six months or year. However, an organisation with 146,000 whole-time equivalent employees needs a modern computer system. Whatever analysis is done and whatever the Health Service Executive finally decides, it needs a proper technology system that will allow it to have up-to-date information. I accept it should have had tighter controls as it proceeded with the system, but it did not. Both Deputy Kenny and I probably found out at the same time during the summer from the staff involved how the HSE system was operating. Let us hope we learn a lesson from it for the future.
We noticed the Taoiseach came from Finglas to Blanchardstown yesterday for a number of official openings. Did he have the pleasure of spending a long time in the biggest car park in the country, the M50? He did not do any official opening of that.
It only took me ten minutes to get back into town.
Of course, ten minutes on the inside lane in his public service vehicle. The Taoiseach should have gone out to see the M50 car park this morning.
Everyone around Blanchardstown is working now. They are not stuck there at that time of the day. It is not like it used to be. They are all at work.
They are stuck out in that car park from 6.30 a.m.
At least the M50 is in place.
Has Deputy Higgins a question?
Yes. Does the Taoiseach see that a conflict has arisen in a number of areas between his programme for Government and the regulators and quangos his Government has tended to set up to avoid direct responsibility? They are at a remove from Cabinet Ministers and the Government. I will make a brief reference to what I mean to illustrate this. The programme for Government promised 3,000 extra beds in the public hospital system, but the chief of the HSE, which has been set up since, says we do not need that number. The Tánaiste does not seem to know whether we do.
That would be a question for the Minister responsible.
There is a fundamental issue of democracy involved which I want the Taoiseach to tease out for us. When there is such a conflict, who prevails — the quango or the programme for Government?
I resent the HSE, which employs 146,000 people, 100,000 of them full-time, in the health service being called a quango.
I did not call the health service a quango. The Taoiseach should not divert from the issue.
That organisation provides the health service in this country. Obviously, we must take into account the views of the HSE. We need additional beds. The capital programme this year is €500 million and next year it will be of the same order. Much of that money is providing better facilities and a large number of beds in different hospitals throughout the State. As it is probably unlikely we will get to the stage of providing all the required beds, we must continue to try to provide them. We need more beds. Our population has increased and the problems we have in accident and emergency units dictate that we need them.
Professor Drumm says that we do not need them.
I do not think he says we do not need beds. He might argue about the number required and about how we use existing beds, day beds and facilities. However, he is not arguing that we do not need beds.
I would like to make two points. First, does the Taoiseach agree that the first paragraph of the programme for Government states that the Government's "overriding priority will be to secure lasting peace in Ireland through the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement"? The Government committed itself in the programme to "the consolidation of its institutions, and the development of a spirit of friendship and cooperation between North and South ..... without prejudice to the ultimate goal of achieving a united Ireland in peace and agreement". Will the Taoiseach outline to the House the progress that has been made in respect of that central aim of the Government? Will he clarify the level of progress he expects will be made in that regard between now and the end of the year?
Second, one of the key aims of the programme for Government is the improvement of infrastructural supports and links on an all-Ireland basis. I think the Taoiseach will agree that particularly slow progress has been made in many of these areas. I ask him to outline the progress that has been made in respect of the all-Ireland travel scheme for pensioners, which is an example of a project to which the Government committed itself, but has yet to be delivered. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the absence of progress on a full raft of important and worthwhile projects is disappointing and is setting back the overall project? I refer to the Ulster Canal project, for example.
The Deputy is going into specific matters which are more appropriate to the——
No, I am only giving instances of what I am speaking about.
I accept that, Deputy, but you are being specific.
I refer to infrastructural development projects which were committed to in the programme for Government. Is the Taoiseach aware that a study published today demonstrates the need for formal arrangements for the cross-Border delivery of accident and emergency services?
That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children.
I am only asking whether the Taoiseach is aware of the report.
That does not arise from Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive.
It does.
No, Deputy, the Chair has ruled on the matter.
There are infrastructural projects other than the construction of roads and canals. I refer to the development of essential services, for example, and the health service is an integral part of this country's infrastructure. As a resident of the Border region, I am deeply concerned that people in my locality do not have access to the full raft of accident and emergency services in the region.
That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children.
It is, of course.
We cannot have one rule for the Deputy and another rule for other Deputies.
I call the Taoiseach on Deputy Ó Caoláin's first set of questions.
I hope the Government will demonstrate its concern for the residents of Border areas, who need the support I have mentioned.
I will abide by the Chair's ruling by giving a broad reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin's general questions. A new round of meetings with the parties is under way. It is hoped that progress can be made, although perhaps not by the end of the year. We will try to understand the concerns of the parties and to listen to their views on how we should tread forward in the new year in respect of the Good Friday Agreement. I hope we will be able to start making progress early in the new year on how best to get the institutions up and running. That will have to be our priority after the IMC report is published in January. I am sure the present round of discussions, which is based on listening to the parties, engaging with them on various issues and finding out how they would like to proceed, will prove to be useful. I am having a round of meetings. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Hain, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, will also be involved in meetings which will take place before the end of the month. The extent to which the various parties will engage with the process in January or early in the spring should be clear to us by the end of the month. I still believe we should hold firm to that agenda and try to move in that regard.
I will comment briefly on the North-South bodies and the issues of an infrastructural nature raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin. It is enough for me to say that they are still on a care and maintenance basis and it is important that we keep them on such a basis until we get the institutions up and running again. I will not answer the specific questions asked by the Deputy, in accordance with the Chair's ruling, other than to mention that I outlined in a speech I made to the Institute of Directors last week how we should move forward in respect of the Ulster Canal and some other issues. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, spoke publicly about similar issues in recent speeches in Belfast and Derry. The Tánaiste will visit Belfast shortly where she will discuss health issues which cover the points raised by the Deputy.
A number of school groups are in the Visitors Gallery and I am sure they are trying to follow this line of questioning. I take it we are still talking about the Government's third annual progress report. On that basis, is this a case of the Government assessing its own progress or has any level of independent assessment been brought to bear on this document? Is it not fair to say that this could be seen as akin to an errant student writing his or her own report card and obviously trying to put the best possible gloss on it, whether or not it is fully truthful? Would it be advisable in a report of this type to be more up-front in admitting to mistakes made, promises that perhaps should not have been made in regard to the ending of hospital waiting lists or the objective of having primary school classes of less than 20 pupils, an objective which is far from being met? I do not wish to go into greater detail as the Ceann Comhairle will tell me to ask the line Minister. The Transport 21 plan is an example of what I am talking about. This time last year the Taoiseach said the metro could not possibly be countenanced——
I am sorry, Deputy. Perhaps for the benefit of the Deputy I will again read out Standing Order 33.
The Ceann Comhairle does not have to do that.
"Questions addressed to a member of the Government must relate to the public affairs connected to his or her Department or to matters of administration for which he or she is officially responsible."
I was trying not to fall into that trap by giving an illustration. I hoped the Ceann Comhairle might see it as such. My point is that this time last year, in regard to the last report, the Taoiseach told me we could not possibly have a metro as, to use his words: "it would soak up the whole capital programme for the State for the next ten years". I just wonder if the next progress report will be more objective and if it will face up to the fact that mistakes were made. We are all human. Nobody is saying that everybody is perfect. Would the Taoiseach not admit that mistakes have been made and lessons have been learned? People might then feel it is a more objective assessment of the Government rather than a public relations exercise.
In reply to the Deputy's first question on education, spending on education has gone up 120% in recent years and we have provided an extra 4,500 teachers and 3,000 resource teachers.
Classes are still big.
Yes, but there has been an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. There has also been an improvement in the capital programme and in addressing disadvantage. Smaller class sizes are being introduced, particularly for the disadvantaged. A number of improvements have taken place. As I said in reply to Deputy Kenny, one would like to achieve even more, particularly for the disadvantaged.
You promised it.
It is happening and resources are being invested all the time. An enormous budget is being provided. In the education area much of the budget relates to people. Apart from the capital programme the bulk of funding is spent on teachers and this is improving the situation.
The report indicates that 75% of what was promised in the programme for Government has been delivered. I accept there may be difficulties in completing every aspect of it. I never say there are problems that are insurmountable. The Government is always endeavouring to improve. As for things promised a few years ago, circumstances change and one must try to do more. That is the nature of the thing. I never said that everything is perfect. It is not a utopia and nobody is beyond reproach. All I ever ask is a fair examination of matters. As Deputy Sargent said, the Government provides a progress report but the people will ultimately decide. That is how it is in a democracy. That has always been the way. We have endeavoured to make improvements across the areas in the programme for Government. This country is doing extraordinarily well. There is a low level of unemployment and national debt and a high level of infrastructural spending. There have been considerable improvements in many areas.
There is inequality.
There is some inequality but equality has improved greatly and we are high on that list. Last week a report by German economists put this country number one in Europe in these areas. We are number one in the lifestyle area. There are areas in which we are lower down the list, and I accept that. Each year we should try to improve on them. The reason for being in public life is to try to improve things. If everything was perfect, it would not be much fun being in it.
Deputy Sargent asked me, on behalf of his constituents, to try to get a transport system in the next ten years not only to the airport but to Swords and north county Dublin. Now that I have done that, he is giving out to me.
I asked what the Taoiseach meant a year ago.
The Taoiseach is in much better form this week.
My cold is gone. I apologise if I growled at Deputy Rabbitte last week.
No. The Taoiseach is always very polite in the face of severe provocation.
Does the Taoiseach not think the time has come to rethink the spending of €665,000 on a report that is not serving its objective, which is to impress the people? It might have seemed a good idea when we were still getting accustomed to the extraordinary growth rates we have had for a dozen years but the people have grown accustomed to them now, they are paying their taxes and they expect to get results. They are interested in the things the Government is not doing rather than seeing the things it is doing being puffed up. For example, what reliance is the average citizen to place on the Government's commitment to implement the health strategy?
That is not relevant——
I am not asking a particular question on it. Earlier the Taoiseach dealt, in considerable detail, with what Professor Drumm said about this, that and the other. One would think the Taoiseach was the Irish out half playing against the All-Blacks the way the Ceann Comhairle seeks to protect him. He is the Head of Government and he should be allowed to answer a question as such.
I am not protecting anybody but am applying the Standing Order as it has been applied by all my predecessors.
What reliance do we place on the programme for Government in the major area of health, for example? Has the whole orientation of the strategy changed? Are we now heading off in a different direction? If we are to go back to Deputy Sargent's question, why does the report not state that the Government has rethought the whole health area, that the way it was going at Ballymascanlon was the wrong way, that it has changed direction under Professor Drumm, who is now making policy, and that it is going in the other direction?
As regards getting Deputy Sargent to Balbriggan, the Taoiseach did not answer his question which was that if a year ago the cost of the metro would put us in hock for ten years in terms of other infrastructure projects, how come it can be thrown in now as if it were an afterthought in the middle of the €34.5 billion which the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, is promoting in the Irish Independent today. Are we now to have a series of political advertisements like we had coming up to 2002 fronted by Ministers? The Taoiseach will remember that coming up to the election in 2002, there was not a Minister in his Cabinet who did not have a radio promotion, an advertisement in the newspapers or whatever paid for by taxpayers’ money advertising public services but promoting politicians.
I am happy my friend, the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, is getting a look in because between the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Cullen, it is very hard for him to do so. I am anxious he gets a look in but do we have to pay for advertisements to promote him between now and the general election? He said in the newspaper today that he will ensure there will be no snarl-up of traffic coming up to Christmas, and we are paying for it.
I suggest the Deputy submits a separate question on that matter.
That is a very narrow view of the question.
The Chair has ruled on it.
The Taoiseach must answer for the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. I am asking him if this is the beginning of another political splurge at the taxpayers expense.
On the health issue, the Government has carefully developed the health strategy in recent years and it has implemented the structural, institutional changes by moving from the health boards to the Health Service Executive. The key changes and positions in the HSE are being organised and implemented on a national basis. None of that has been changed. It was decided that this policy, by and large, would rest with the Department of Health and Children while the implementation and management of day-to-day activity would be the responsibility of the HSE. There is interaction daily between the Department and the HSE on a range of issues. All the initiatives that we have implemented and worked on, whether they relate to the capital programme, improving the medical card scheme, which was a major issue a year ago, or the national treatment purchase fund, which has significantly reduced waiting lists, will continue successfully.
When Deputy Sargent wanted us to move on the transport infrastructure Bill a year ago——
What about the metro?
I said we did not have a ten-year plan. In December 2004 the Minister for Finance said he was prepared to examine such a plan. The multi-annual programme only covered three years and there was no way to resource a ten-year programme because of the costs. However, now we examine the indicative costs based on the best assessments by the agency.
The Government found more money.
Looking back over the past seven to ten years, we can see the cost of the capital programme. We are much better placed to try and deal with it.
Is it cheaper?
Deputy Rabbitte referred to the guidelines relating to what Ministers and Ministers of State can do. Any departmental advertisement must be based on information. The announcement earlier by the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, set out the arrangements for Operation Freeflow and the availability of additional transport to assist the public, as happens at this time every year. It is a public information issue.
The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, appeared under calf nuts in the Irish Farmers’ Journal during the summer. We are waiting for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to appear next.
What about Christmas trees for the public?
That is a different Minister's responsibility.
The Minister could get an advertisement out of that going in his own constituency.
As long as he goes into the tunnel with the advertisement and does not reappear.
The Taoiseach in his earlier reply spoke of a care and maintenance position being adopted in the absence of the restoration of the institutions. Is he aware the Secretary of State and a number of direct rule Ministers have indicated that is not the case and there is no impediment to them taking decisions on major cross-Border capital works in the absence of the restoration of the institutions? However, I agree projects would be expedited and would proceed with greater care and enthusiasm under indigenous occupants of these positions. Nevertheless, does the Taoiseach accept the use of this phraseology and the trundling out of the care and maintenance approach as an excuse for the absence of progress is not acceptable and that, under the programme for Government, there must be an enthusiastic pursuit of all the projects, including those I cited such as the Ulster Canal et al?
That is the responsibility of a line Minister. The Deputy should be brief. Other Deputies are offering.
Will the Taoiseach confirm there is ample evidence there is no impediment to progress at this stage and that progress must be made on these projects which are an integral part of what his Government promised?
I will elaborate on my reply, as I did not seek to play down any role. The care and maintenance arrangements are in place for the present North-South bodies to keep them operating and functioning. That does not preclude action in other areas. Like the Deputy, I would prefer a different arrangement but in recent weeks and months Secretary of State Hain and his colleague, Minister of State David Hanson, have been progressive on the Ulster Canal and other projects. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, has been dealing directly with this and much progress has been made on a number of issues. In fairness to Secretary of State Hain and his ministerial colleagues, they have taken a position on issues, including implementation bodies, on which we can make progress, as stated by Deputy Ó Caoláin. Since the new administration took office it has been very forthright and we have seen movement that we did not see previously. There has been much engagement by Ministers and I hope that continues. Regarding care and maintenance for implementation bodies, it is important we keep activity on these issues moving.
One element of Government policy which I support strongly is its attempt to introduce regulation for undocumented Irish in the United States. I met the Minister for Foreign Affairs in New York last week. The estimated figure for undocumented Irish in the United States is between 25,0000 and 50,000 out of an estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States. President Bush has signed the homeland security Bill and the intention is to send every immigrant home. While there is no direct intention to remove the Irish, the view of American legislators is that regulating their situation might not be as easy as was assumed. It is the Government's intention to have this matter regulated if possible, a position supported by every party. I suggest the Taoiseach take every opportunity to raise this matter with the American authorities. I will write to the Taoiseach on a number of issues arising from this matter that deserve Government consideration.
I welcome Deputy Kenny's support on this issue, which is creating a high degree of frustration and concern for undocumented Irish, particularly those who left for the United States in the wave of emigration in the early 1980s. They are over 20 years in the country. As was the case last St. Patrick's Day, I will take every opportunity to raise this issue with key figures from the administration.
As I reported to the House previously, we must pursue two fronts on this issue. One concerns the legislative measures in the three proposals in the administration, between the Senate and the House of Representatives. I believe that Senator McCain's Bill will surface but we cannot be certain. The difficulty is that the old system of quotas no longer applies. If a quota arrangement were in place, one could lobby for a quota. We are unlikely to receive preferential treatment, as Deputy Kenny is aware from his discussions. How can we encourage the administration to make the distinction between the Mexican situation and smaller countries? It is very difficult to legislate for this situation. If there was a quota system, it would be very small in proportion to the number of immigrants there. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and all other Ministers, when meeting here or in the United States, will continue to lobby on this issue.
In the context of the review of the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government, will the Taoiseach consider the increasing outsourcing of responsibility to other agencies? As elected Members of Dáil Éireann, we cannot ask about these agencies on the floor of the Dáil. I received a number of letters today from your good self, a Cheann Comhairle, rejecting questions I tabled for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on crucial issues concerning the Environmental Protection Agency and its conduct of a serious pollution issue for farmers near Askeaton. If we wish to put questions to the Taoiseach, you repeatedly direct us to the line Minister. However, when we put crucial issues to the line Minister that should be his responsibility, we are told that he has no such responsibility to the Dáil. I am not on the board of the Environmental Protection Agency, I have been elected to Dáil Éireann and I should have the right to question the Minister about important issues on behalf of constituents and citizens generally, rather then being blocked in this way.
Does the Taoiseach accept that if I had been elected to the Dáil ten years ago I could have asked questions and obtained responses on this matter? Whether the answers would be satisfactory or not, I do not know, but at least I could challenge the Minister on far more crucial issues than I am allowed to do now. Is that not going in the opposite direction to democratic accountability?
The Chair is obliged to implement Standing Orders, which are based on decisions made by this House. If legislation determines that outside agencies have responsibility, the Chair must discharge its responsibility to Members of the House. I am not getting into an argument about it with the Deputy.
I know that, a Cheann Comhairle.
I call on the Taoiseach to answer the question.
I do not think any Act states that one must not ask about this or that matter. The legislation gives the Environmental Protection Agency responsibility, but that should be subject to the Government and the Minister who are answerable to elected Members of Dáil Éireann.
The Chair implements the Standing Orders laid down by the House, Deputy. If the House is not satisfied with them, it knows what to do.
The Deputy has raised a fundamental point that originates from the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924. It is an 80 year old provision which has been subject to deletions and additions. In its wisdom, the legislation provides that the State believes there are areas of responsibility that are better given to outside agencies established by Acts of the Oireachtas to deal with day-to-day affairs. I am sure an audit would show that there are more, but it is not something new. The basis of the Act is that, rather than Ministers making decisions on various matters, it should be done by others to extend protection. The legislation has been on the Statute Book for a long time and has not changed much in the interim. It still operates on the same basis as when it was enacted 81 years ago.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the annual progress report we are discussing is, in many ways, a reinvention of the programme for Government? It is the latest manifestation of that programme as it was at that time. It has been subject to many changes to the extent that the programme for Government is a moveable feast. For example, the Luas did not join up in 1998, but is due to do so under the Transport 21 plan.
It is time to conclude Taoiseach's questions.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on whether the progress report we are talking about is more of a reinvention of the programme for Government, which is not to be believed?
At a cost of €665, most of the third annual progress report provides a factual assessment of what progress has been made in the life of the Government through decisions based on the programme for Government, as well as giving an account of where such projects currently stand. I would have thought it was useful to provide an annual update for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the media and others who follow the affairs of this House. It is a guide to where things stand. It does not purport to be any more than a report but that is useful. We have had it for the past eight or nine years and it makes the House and Government more accountable by reporting what was said would be done and what was done.
