Pat Rabbitte
Question:1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for the remainder of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24368/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Legislative Programme.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25205/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25343/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27690/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his Department’s legislative priorities for the remainder of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28678/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
My Department has two items of legislation for the current Dáil session — the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 and the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004. The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 is awaiting Report Stage while the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004 is awaiting Committee Stage. We hope these Bills will be taken shortly.
As the Taoiseach will know, the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 was initiated in 2002 but it has still not been enacted. I wish to make a suggestion regarding the North-South civic consultative forum provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. Would it be possible to deal with this issue by way of an amendment to the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill? There is no reason the National Economic and Social Development Office should not take on that responsibility as well. It would be a quick way to deal with something to which we all gave allegiance in the Good Friday Agreement.
I presume the Deputy is talking about the North-South consultative forum. I will certainly consider that. I do not know how much work has been done but I will check to see if that could be done. I have no objections. As I said before, the fact this Bill has not been passed is not a huge difficulty but it is important in the long term in that it relates to people's pension rights and other issues. I would like the Bill to be passed, although I accept it is not an urgent matter. Perhaps I will consider that to see if it can be done. If it can be done, I would have no problem with it.
The Taoiseach is responsible for referenda. We had the Order for Second Stage of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2005, which was a prerequisite for a referendum. Will the Taoiseach indicate if that legislation will be brought forward in the future or is it in abeyance? Does it depend on factors outside his control or can he indicate if he has a date in mind?
We discussed North-South bodies earlier and the Taoiseach said he would consider the obstacles, as he saw them, in the way of the register for persons considered unsafe to work with children legislation. Has he had an opportunity to do so? Will it be possible to overcome those obstacles given that in the North, a different view seems to have been taken, namely, that it is possible to continue and not to be held up by the lack of institutions there? Has there been progress on that issue?
On the second matter, I have asked the Minister and the officials to examine that. I raised it with them last Thursday when I was in the North. We await a response but I have asked the Minister to give it priority.
On the Deputy's first question on the referendum on the EU constitution, as of now, it will not arise in the short term. A review and an examination is taking place everywhere. I welcome what is happening here where many debates and discussions are taking place at different levels. Many politicians have been involved in some of the debates and discussions I attended, which is good. The more extensive the debate throughout the winter and spring, the better.
The Austrian Presidency next June will report on where to go. However, I do not believe the French or the Dutch will make announcements on this in the short term. The Dutch are very adamant that they will not return to this in the lifetime of their current government. No one has contradicted that. The French face a slightly different debate. They have other debates with which to contend. I do not believe this issue will come up before the French presidential election so I do not see it arising in the lifetime of this Dáil.
Is the Taoiseach ruling out any possibility of a referendum on the EU constitution even assuming that he maintains this Dáil for another 18 months? Does he agree that even if he did, it is very unlikely it would be passed considering that his former Minister for Finance is hell-bent on legalising cheap labour regimes within the European Union in the form of the services——
That does not arise out of these questions.
——legislation he is trying to introduce to formalise the race to the bottom?
The French election will be in summer 2007. The Austrian Presidency could get agreement that other countries could go ahead. There is now a majority of 13 or 14 countries and all the indications are that another three or four will definitely move. We are moving to a position where we are down to the last five or six next year. The Austrian Presidency might say the others should go ahead with the exception of the two. In that case, we would proceed. However, I do not believe that is likely to happen. I believe people will wait until after the French presidential election but perhaps they will change their minds over the next nine months or so.
Will the Taoiseach bring forward legislation to provide for any constitutional changes in the remainder of the current Dáil? For instance, in the area of Seanad reform, many reports have been presented recommending specific changes in the arrangements for the election to and operation of the House within the Oireachtas. Will the Government bring forward a package of constitutional changes? Will the Taoiseach consider the introduction of a list system for Seanad elections, thus providing access for the electorate throughout the island of Ireland and the Irish diaspora, both of which have been argued for by a variety of sources through the years? What is his view on those matters?
The Government's White Paper on Regulatory Reform contains a list of actions relating to the legislative process. I have raised this with the Taoiseach on a number of occasions and, recently, during the Order of Business on a question regarding the heads of a Bill he encouraged me to table a parliamentary question. I did so and, lo and behold, I was contacted and clarification was requested regarding what the question meant. I still have not received a reply to it and I wonder whether the Taoiseach can give me the information now. This has been flagged by him on many occasions. How many times have the draft heads been circulated in advance of a Bill's publication? I accept it can only be done where it is feasible and appropriate but how many times has that facility, which the Taoiseach heralded, been availed of and provided?
I would not rule out constitutional change on issues that are, perhaps, non-constitutional and where referenda are necessary. That could happen at any time following a judgment of the High Court or Supreme Court. There is none currently. Issues have arisen from the various reports of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which are being examined by various Departments, and they could result in constitutional referenda. A referendum is not planned but a number of issues are under consideration arising directly from the reports.
On Seanad reform, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is chairing a group. I am not sure where it is at but a parliamentary question to the Minister would be appropriate. Seanad reform is being examined on the basis of the comprehensive report the Seanad itself produced. The House appointed a good group which worked through most of the summer two years ago to produce that report and this is being used as the basis for discussion as well as some of the suggestions and proposals we made about extending membership and making Northern representation permanent. That matter is being examined again. I have no other view outside those views.
With regard to the publication of the heads of a Bill and the regulatory impact analysis, it was suggested it would be a good idea to circulate the heads of a Bill in more areas, though perhaps not all, to generate discussion and to allow interest groups, whether they comprise social partners or others, to make a submission. It is not something new. This has been done over the years in many Departments. It is a good practice but some Departments do not share that view. It is a way of speeding up the process. However, legislation is always better when one consults. Perhaps that is my view because I spent much of my ministerial career in the Department of Labour. I did not invent it but the basis of doing business in that Department was to discuss the heads of a Bill with employers and trade unions which gave them an input and improved the legislation. Perhaps that cannot be done in every area but a number of Ministers are doing it. I welcome that because it is a good way to give people an input. It is not possible when a Bill is put through the House quickly but many Bills take two or three years at least before they get through the system. The publication of the heads of Bills is part of policy and the regulatory impact analysis. It was not previously but the process has become formalised and there is more compulsion on people to do it.
The Forum on Europe played an important role in the run up the last number of referenda. Given that it is unlikely a referendum on the so-called EU constitution will be held during the remainder of the lifetime of this Administration, what is the future of the forum? Does the Taoiseach expect it to meet on a number of occasions over the next 12 months or whatever? I agree with him that it is unlikely the French or the Dutch will go back to the constitution. Does he envisage a scenario where the non-contentious elements of the document will de facto be implemented, given that a number of them could be under way? Could the EU Heads of Government say, “The following are non-contentious and let us implement them and get on with it”?
In reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin, the Taoiseach stated he does not have any views outside the report prepared by the Seanad itself regarding its reform. However, it is important that the diaspora should be represented in the Oireachtas. A number of detailed discussions on motions and Private Members' Bills took place on this issue in the 1980s but it did not prove practical to implement a measure in this regard. Jim Higgins, MEP, offered to hand over his Seanad seat to an agreed appointee of the diaspora movement from Britain or wherever. That offer is still on the table and in view of the——
That issue does not arise in this set of questions.
I refer to Seanad reform.
It is still not the subject of the questions.
Does the Taoiseach support this offer? If the vacancy occurred and the diaspora was agreeable to nominating a person, would the Taoiseach accept this without contesting a Seanad by-election?
There is every reason for the Forum on Europe to continue its work. I welcome the communicating Europe initiative by the European Commission under which more commissioners and other senior officials will make themselves available to governments. The Forum on Europe is the best way to support dialogue and discussion of the issues and the forum's reports tease them out. The forum was established because that was not happening. Admittedly, it was a Labour Party proposal, which I took up, but it was a good one. We should continue to develop the forum and I would love it see it receive more media attention because there have been some excellent debates, which have almost gone unnoticed. That is a pity because there has been high quality debate about national questions and issues such as how the role of the Defence Forces will evolve and change and battlegroups. These issues have been well debated at the forum and consensus must be built on them. Next year, three or four commissioners, as well as the President of Commission, will attend the forum. The President will attend again because he thought it was a useful exercise. Since he visited during the summer, he has advocated that his commissioners and representatives of other member states should attend the forum. That meeting received a great deal of coverage but we could generate coverage of many of the other meetings. Deputy Joe Higgins will be delighted to know that Commissioner McCreevy will attend the forum to see him.
I would be delighted to challenge him on his justification for the cheap labour regime.
That will be another good day in the forum. The sad thing about the constitutional document is that the chairman of the convention insisted on it remaining as it was. A number of us warned that publishing and explaining an enormous document with annexes was fraught with danger, in view of the relatively simple case of explaining the Nice referendum. The French insisted on the framework as the way to do it. One could take all the institutional sections which would maintain the balance of how the constitution was negotiated. One could not take some sections of the document and have these approved but one could leave out the annexes and make progress. This must be examined.
With the addition of Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria, some 28 countries could be EU member states. Other discussions are taking place, including discussions with a lobby group for the accession of the Ukraine, which is inevitable over the next few years. In addition, at least three or four countries in the Balkans will come on to the map over the next three or four years. On the current institutions and qualified majority voting we cannot continue without reform so it is advisable to examine this matter. This will form part of the debate next summer.
Regarding the Seanad, the difficulties in the 1980s still exist and it is a matter for the Seanad to discuss. I am not ruling out consideration of what the MEP from Deputy Kenny's party proposed. How would one define an electorate? I assume the Deputy is referring to the proposal where the Federation of Irish Societies would nominate someone. This could be pursued in discussion. I was involved in these discussions as Whip in the 1980s and it proved impossible to establish a basis of an electorate in the United States and the United Kingdom, without considering the wider Irish diaspora.
I refer to an appointee from an agreed grouping.
From the Federation of Irish Societies.
Yes, I understand it could not be an elected candidate.
The Taoiseach stated he could not recall where the Seanad reform issue stands. Is the Government serious about Seanad reform or is the purpose of this entire exercise the inclusion of representatives from Northern Ireland on a cross-community basis? Does the Taoiseach intend these to be included in the 11 nominees of the Taoiseach or would it be otherwise? Does the Taoiseach accept the Government should have a view on Seanad reform? Some of us in this House hold the view that Seanad reform is badly needed. Is the present exercise making progress?
I apologise if I was misunderstood. I stated I had no view other than the report. I attended the committee meeting, spending several hours there.
So did I.
I gave my views and these are reflected in the report. I support the report and believe reform is necessary in the Upper House, as do my esteemed colleagues in the Upper House. We could get far more out of the Upper House through some of the reform measures in the report, which I support.
Arising from correspondence on parliamentary questions, it has been established RTE does not have a remit to broadcast in Britain. As the broadcasting Bill is a Government priority, I assume it can be raised in this series of questions. It is difficult to raise this matter on the Order of Business, as the Ceann Comhairle is aware.
It is even more difficult to raise it on Taoiseach's questions as they should relate specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I am wrong again.
The Taoiseach might take an initiative, legislatively speaking.
The Taoiseach might rise to the occasion.
Some days ago, I asked the Taoiseach on the Order of Business to extract the required section of legislation from the maw of the broadcasting Bill, which will take between a year and 18 months to pass through the Houses. I thought the Taoiseach was favourably disposed to this.
I suggest the Deputy submit a question to the appropriate Minister.
I know the answer from the Minister but I need the Taoiseach to do something about the Minister. If this section could be removed, I have no doubt the Opposition would agree to an amendment or correction being passed by the House in a day. This would enable the Taoiseach to make progress on an issue for which he has indicated strong support, namely, broadcasting RTE programmes to England.
Deputy Stagg does not ask me too many questions. At his behest, I raised this matter last year with the RTE authority and discussed the matter with it when I opened the new offices in Millbank, in the United Kingdom. The members of the authority raised two issues, the cost and the legislative element. I understand the legislative matters can be resolved in the broadcasting Bill. This leaves the cost issue and I understand the Minister and his officials would rather deal with this in the context of the entire broadcasting Bill.
I am aware of Deputy Stagg's interest in this matter and would share it from a different perspective. From a sporting point of view I think broadcasting to Britain would be a good thing. Deputy Stagg's proposal is good — perhaps he is looking at it from the perspective of cultural and other issues. A large audience of Irish people in the United Kingdom would be interested in Irish radio and particularly in sport during the summertime. It would be valued if people could get far better reception and if it can be done I will support this measure. I will speak to the Minister again on this issue if it does not cost an arm and a leg. Many people are listening to games and other cultural events, with which I am not familiar, on the Internet but this is not the easiest way of doing this.
Regarding legislation to facilitate Seanad reform, has the Taoiseach considered Seanad elections directly from a list system? That is the critical question.
The question has already been answered.
No, it has not.
We cannot address what might be in legislation.
It is not anticipated but I am asking if the Taoiseach has given due consideration to this matter.
The report already published is the basis of the discussion.
Cabinet Committees.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met; and when the next meeting is scheduled. [24375/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the membership of the Cabinet committee on children; and when it last met. [26486/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met. [27308/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the membership of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs; when it last met; and when its next meeting is scheduled. [27691/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs last met. [30209/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs and social inclusion last met. [32458/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social inclusion and the Cabinet committee on children last met on 5 October 2005. The next meeting of both committees is scheduled for tomorrow.
I chair both the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and the Cabinet committee on children. Their membership includes the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children and the Ministers for Education and Science; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; Finance; the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Social and Family Affairs; and the Ministers of State with special responsibility for children; housing and urban renewal; drugs strategy and community affairs; and equality issues, including disability issues.
In addition, the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism is a member of the Cabinet committee on children and the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, including training, is a member of the Cabinet committee on social inclusion.
It strikes me there are more people on the sub-committee than in the Cabinet. In view of recent experiences in this area, is there an argument for reorganisation of Departments so a single Department focusses on needs of children in all respects as responsibilities for these needs is currently scattered across several Departments? The experience of successive Ministers of State is that they have been fighting an uphill struggle to focus on the needs of children.
The National Children's Office co-ordinates aspects of various Departments and that is probably as good as one can make it. I am not saying that cannot be improved upon because everything can always be improved through more input. Neither I nor the Minister think the idea of a separate Department for children is worthwhile because one cannot take children out of the education or health sectors. Therefore, if there was a separate Department for children, one would still be dealing with health and education aspects through the relevant Departments. I certainly agree with making the role more powerful but the current Minister has such a role, as did the previous one. It is important to build the National Children's Office which can co-ordinate work across Departments. To do otherwise, through the establishment of a Department of children, would not be meaningful.
Will the Taoiseach tell us the terms of reference, if any, for the Cabinet committee on children? Does the committee deal with the issue of child care? Has the Taoiseach put before that committee the report of the National Economic and Social Forum on child care and early childhood education? Will the Taoiseach ask the Cabinet committee on children to consider the need for child care and early childhood education to be the special preserve of a single ministry in the future? Will the committee consider such a proposal rather than the current situation whereby issues relating to children are scattered across a raft of different Departments?
When Members ask questions relating to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs they are often referred to the line Minister. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a member of the committee on social inclusion and drugs? If the Minister is a member of that committee he should accord Members of this House the courtesy of a response when questions are put to him on the specific area of drug abuse, rather than resorting to the diatribe of abuse he directs at my Sinn Féin colleagues.
That does not arise on Taoiseach's Questions.
Indeed it has arisen.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a member of that committee, which deals with all social inclusion issues across a range of Departments. Obviously, child care and related issues are discussed at that committee. As I said in reply to Deputy Rabbitte, children's issues are being dealt with by the National Children's Office. As is obvious from recent issues, the equal opportunity programmes involve both the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Health and Children. Cabinet committees operate on the basis of achieving interdepartmental co-operation on matters that are not specific to any one Department.
Will the Taoiseach urge consideration of a single Department for children?
As I said to Deputy Rabbitte, I do not think it is workable because one cannot take the child from the family or remove children from the health and education sectors. Rather than have a duplication of effort, it is better to co-ordinate such efforts. Specific issues can be dealt with by the Minister for Health and Children, but one cannot duplicate the entire effort. When necessary, the Minister for Health and Children can co-ordinate people from various Departments, which is a more efficient way of dealing with it.
In addition to examining whether lessons can be learned or future mistakes avoided, will the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs take stock, given the result of the French referendum on the EU constitution, of the problems in France where rioting has occurred for the past 13 nights? Some 1,200 people are in custody in France, many of them on the basis of social exclusion as they would see it. Perhaps the committee needs to meet more often, given that its social inclusion remit does not appear to be fulfilled, particularly as one quarter of Irish children remain at risk of poverty according to CORI and the ESRI.
The Deputy should put a simple question. We cannot have a debate on the issue.
I have a simple question as follows. Given that the ESRI has clearly indicated that people with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty, does the committee on social inclusion pay attention to monitoring the lives of such people?
What is discussed at the committee is not a matter for the Taoiseach to respond to during question time. That has been the ruling of my predecessors and myself for years.
Could the committee meet more frequently, given that it has a larger work volume than it appears to be able to get through?
Can the committee meet more frequently, Taoiseach?
The committee meets monthly and the various Departments deal with its agenda. Much of the cross-departmental work deals with the Disability Act 2004, sectoral plans, the Comhairle Bill, the multi-annual investment plans and the Disability Services Bill. The latter measures have all been designed to put more resources into the disability sector.
It has been accepted for a long time that cocaine addiction is best treated by counselling services. Is the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs satisfied that the growing cocaine problem is being dealt with by——
As I pointed out to Deputy Sargent, that is a question for the line Minister.
I am not asking the Taoiseach to specify them, but are any new initiatives planned to cope with the relatively recent phenomenon of cocaine abuse?
That is a matter for the line Minister, as I have pointed out to Deputy Kenny. It is not a matter for Taoiseach's questions.
I am merely asking a general question, Sir. Last weekend alone, we saw three gangland killings.
The Deputy should table a question for the appropriate line Minister.
There were three killings last weekend alone.
The Deputy has made his point, but it is not appropriate to do so during Taoiseach's questions. That has been a ruling of the Chair right back to the establishment of question time.
I have received a number of notices under Standing Order 31, but does the Taoiseach wish to reply to a question?
He is moving into overtime.
We do not have long left, Taoiseach. Do you wish to reply to Question No. 12?
I will provide a short reply.
Decentralisation Programme.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department, broken down by grade, who have applied to the central applications facility for transfer to locations outside of Dublin under the Government’s decentralisation proposals; the likely impact of these transfers on his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24377/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of officials from his Department who have applied to relocate under the Government’s decentralisation proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25201/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department. [25345/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of employees of his Department who have applied to relocate under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27692/05]
Enda Kenny
Question:16 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of officials at his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28679/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 to 16, inclusive, together.
There are no proposals to decentralise any section of my Department or any of the bodies or agencies operating under its aegis.
It is ridiculous to take these questions if there will not be time for any supplementary questions. We are dealing with a major impact on the whole country.
It is the issue of decentralisation.
We still have enough time.
We are only dealing with the Department of the Taoiseach. We will hear the Taoiseach's reply.
We will not have time, even for the Taoiseach's Department.
Since I am not going anywhere, it is very easy, is it not?
He said it.
The Deputy is taking up time now.
A significant part of the Central Statistics Office is already located in Cork. Some 48 staff from my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is: assistant principal, seven; higher executive officer, five; administrative officer, ten; executive officer, 12; staff officer, three; and clerical officer, 11.
Arrangements are in place to ensure the decentralisation of these staff does not impact negatively on the quality of the services provided by the Department. These arrangements include the phased redeployment of some of the remaining staff to the areas of the Department most affected by decentralisation and the provision of training and job profiles/work manuals to new staff, as appropriate.
The fact that nearly 20% of the staff of the Department have opted to relocate outside Dublin shows the underlying decision to initiate a comprehensive decentralisation programme was correct.
Based on the experience of the Taoiseach's Department, will the cost of retraining people to replace those who have been decentralised be a significant factor throughout the Civil Service?
Is anyone within the Government examining the price being paid for land——
That is a matter for the Minister for Finance and does not arise out of this question.
I am not sure about that. It applies across all Departments, including the Department of the Taoiseach. The cost seems to be prohibitive. Some of the replies to parliamentary questions we have tabled suggest that as much as €430,000 an acre is being paid for land in urban centres. Is there a concern within Government about this?
That does not arise out of this question.
The Taoiseach is the Head of the Government. His Department——
I accept that but the questions are quite specific. Standing Order 33 is quite specific. The Taoiseach is responsible in his question time for his Department and not all other Departments.
His Department is minimally involved and therefore I am entitled to ask whether anybody is looking at the prohibitive prices being paid for land to accommodate the decentralisation programme.
The Office of Public Works is engaged in all the departmental moves, and controls the entire programme of costs, whether for land or buildings. Whenever the State is involved in such transactions people try to increase the costs but the Office of Public Works, under the Department of Finance, is in control.
The Taoiseach told us in February that 45 members of his staff had applied through the central applications facility to relocate, that is 20% of his Department. Is there any increase in that figure? There are 10,000 posts to be decentralised but only 1,800 staff have agreed to move outside the greater Dublin area.
Is a cost factor being put in place for interaction between, for example, the Taoiseach's Department and other Departments, if this decentralisation plan ever comes about? Will there not be a great additional cost for interaction between the Taoiseach's Department and others around the country? The staff at Teagasc in Carlow, for example, are to receive €15,000 each for commuting.
The Deputy should submit a question to the Minister for Agriculture and Food about Teagasc.
If one multiplies that it indicates the scale of costs involved.
In my Department, 20% of staff, a total of 48 out of 220 people, have applied to move. That is in line with a very high figure elsewhere. While 2004 was the closing date for applications to the central applications facility, anyone who wants to get onto that list can do so because that was the closing date for priority applications. Several members of the staff have expressed an interest since 2004 and that trend will continue. The numbers across the Departments are increasing all the time.
In one of his first reports the new chairman of the decentralisation implementation group, Mr. Finbar Flood, indicated there were continuing difficulties — he used the words, "little progress"— in the union management talks on facilitating the programme. How does this stand and how does it impact on the Taoiseach's Department? More people seek to remain in Dublin than there are jobs designated to remain here.
That is a question for the Minister for Finance.
I am asking about the Taoiseach's Department because Mr. Flood indicated in his report that 6,000 new jobs would have to be found for public and civil servants in Dublin. Is that reflected in the Taoiseach's Department? What can the Taoiseach tell us about his Department's position?
The problem in my Department is that I am not moving but 20% of my staff want to move so it is a different situation.
They want to get out.
They want to go to the country. They want to go to Monaghan.
Does the Taoiseach want to go to the country?
I like visiting the country every time I get a chance to do so.
Does the Taoiseach want to go to Monaghan?
I was in Monaghan two weeks ago. I cannot go back again for a while.
The Taoiseach was lucky he did not get sick there.
There is an excellent hospital there.
How would the Taoiseach know that? He has not visited the hospital.
There are hardworking people there. As far as we are concerned people will move. In my Department, and every other Department, there are negotiations with trade unions to organise this programme. This has happened previously and is in process again.
I call Deputy Kenny.
The time is too short.