Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28210/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Decentralisation Programme.
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department. [29222/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30665/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; the number that have been relocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30877/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34471/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Thirty-nine staff serving in my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is: assistant principal officer, seven; higher executive officer, three; administrative officer, seven; executive officer, nine; staff officer, two; and clerical officer, 11. Ten former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts.
Arrangements are in place to ensure that the decentralisation of 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.
That 18% of the staff of my Department have opted to relocate outside Dublin shows that the underlying decision to initiate a comprehensive decentralisation programme was the correct one. Deputies will be aware that there are no proposals to decentralise my Department or any of the bodies under its aegis.
Perhaps the staff want to get out because they realise there is to be a change of regime. Obviously, I cannot prove this yet.
What grades in the Taoiseach's Department have opted for relocation? What are the numbers involved? Is it ten, 20 or 30? Have they requested relocation based on where they come from? What is the Taoiseach's view in that regard? My questions are confined to the Department of the Taoiseach because I know the Ceann Comhairle will knock me if I ask anything else.
Of the 213 staff in my Department, 39 have applied to decentralise. They include seven assistant principal officers, three higher executive officers, nine executive officers, two staff officers and 11 clerical officers. Ten former members of staff have already been assigned to decentralised posts. The total number of officials is 49 — ten officials have already moved and a further 39 officials are listed. They will go to a range of places. I do not have the exact numbers for each of the agencies. Some have applied to be transferred to Ordnance Survey Ireland in Dungarvan, the National Standards Authority of Ireland in Arklow, the probation and welfare service in Navan, the National Roads Authority in Ballinasloe, the National Educational Welfare Board in Portarlington, Development Co-operation Ireland in Limerick, Sustainable Energy Ireland in Dundalk, the Garda headquarters in Thurles, Area Development Management Limited in Clifden, the Valuation Office in Youghal and the Prison Service in Longford. In most of the cases I know of, having spoken to the individuals in question, it seems that people decided to apply for decentralisation to get near home or to go back to their roots. Their motivation usually relates to such concerns rather than to the individual offices. People want to get away from Dublin and get back home.
Will there be a campaign of recruitment to replace the people in the Department of the Taoiseach who have opted for relocation? In other words, will the numbers continue to be the same?
The staff numbers will be the same, although we have to achieve a small reduction every year. Under the Department of Finance's guidelines, we have to try to achieve a 3% reduction every year over a three-year period. I am sure that approach will continue into the future. For the past two years, departmental officials who want to participate in the decentralisation programme have been moving into posts in agencies and Departments which are to be moved. People who have decided to stay in Dublin — they may be from Dublin or elsewhere — have usually made such decisions based on their age and the ages of their family members. Such people are filling the posts which are being vacated. These changes are taking place in the public service in an organised way. Some people might argue that the pace of change is slow, but it is not possible to do it in any other way with the staff associations. People are leaving jobs which are not due to be decentralised. Some positions in the Department of the Taoiseach will not be decentralised, although jobs in two areas will be moved to new locations. People in other agencies who do not want to move from Dublin are filling positions in my Department. The programme is working on an organised basis and will continue to do so over a period of time. I understand that approximately 1,000 people are already on the move. That number will increase progressively over a number of years.
The Taoiseach told us in February of this year that his Department would lose approximately 20% of its staff as a result of decentralisation. He said that the problems resulting from those changes would be eased by means of the redeployment and retraining of current staff. How will that procedure be put in place? What procedures are in place for that retraining and redeployment? Given that it seems fairly extensive, has the Department taken account of a cost for it? The Taoiseach indicated in February that 45 staff in his Department had opted to relocate. Will those people be moved over the long term? Will those changes happen at a certain pace? Does the Taoiseach expect them to be moved in advance of the forthcoming general election?
I said on a previous occasion that 45 officials in my Department had applied for decentralisation — that figure has since increased to 49. Ten members of staff have moved on and the others are in the system. The restructuring process under the central applications facility is ongoing. I assure the Deputy that civil servants are not worried about the election because they will still be there on the other side of it, regardless of who else is there. The movement of staff within and between Departments and offices is taking place at a steady pace. Approximately 2,300 officials have been assigned to posts which will be decentralised. That represents approximately 30% of the total number of jobs to be relocated. It is moving progressively. It will not be as quick as we intended it to be. It will be like the programme in the 1990s, when approximately 4,500 people were decentralised more slowly than was anticipated. It is moving. I understand that contracts are being agreed for the 39 buildings and structures which are to be built at the various locations. As people notice what is happening, such as the completion of the physical infrastructure, they will be more inclined to join the panel. It is certainly moving. Hardly a week or month goes by without somebody moving, as one can tell by the extent of staff movement in one's own Department.
Is there a cost for retraining?
As retraining is being done by the Department of Finance, it is a question for that Department. Considerable programmes of training and retraining are being organised, for example in the area of information technology. A great deal of it would probably be happening anyway, but more of it is happening as a consequence of the movements which are taking place.
The Taoiseach mentioned that infrastructure is visible. What is his view on the Economic and Social Research Institute's comment that the State is spending €1 billion on offices for civil servants who already have offices? The Taoiseach has said he can see officials moving every day in the Department, but how does that accord with the fact that fewer than 750 officials are prepared to move by the end of this year, when the initial target was 10,300?
The questions before the House refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach. Questions on decentralisation are matters for the Minister for Finance in the first instance, and then for the line Ministers. These questions refer specifically to the Taoiseach and his Department.
Yes. Arising from the experience of the Taoiseach in his Department, is it not time to admit that the political stroke to transfer 10,300 civil servants is in a shambles and——
That does not arise.
——that we need to go back to the drawing board?
I suggest that the Deputy submit a question to the relevant Minister.
My question derives from the Taoiseach's experience in his Department. The decentralisation programme is not happening in the Department of the Taoiseach. It will not be delivered. It is damaging the Civil Service. It is duplicating buildings. It is creating a parallel Civil Service. Does the Taoiseach agree that we should go back to the drawing board for a negotiated and planned programme of voluntary decentralisation?
The questions before the House refer specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The things mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte are happening in my Department. Progress is being made with the central applications facility and in the discussions with the staff associations. My Department and all other Departments and agencies are working their way through the system. It will be slower than we anticipated. That has to be the case because the programme is voluntary. We are working our way through the system. I would not say it is a failure in the Department of the Taoiseach, or that it is not working there. We have moved to a position where it is working. Some 20% of the staff of my Department will move under the decentralisation programme. That is a high number, on any base. That almost 50 people, from just over 200 people, are prepared to relocate demonstrates that it is working. I concede that it is slower than we hoped, but there are many reasons for that. Some of the reasons are good and some of them are not so good. We have to provide for retraining and give people opportunities in areas like technology. I do not think it affects the service in any way. When I deal with a range of Departments which are involved in the decentralisation programme, there are no great difficulties. It will be even less of a problem as technology improves and advances.
What about the comment made by the ESRI?
Many of the buildings which are held by the OPW are also on saleable leases. If Departments move, including some Departments near here, they can sell on some very lucrative contracts. We need to consider what the bottom line figure for that will be in five or ten years time. One can receive far better offers throughout the country, as we all know. Some of the buildings which are held are quite expensive. I do not refer to the old traditional buildings, but to buildings which have been leased and rented by the OPW. We have to take that into the equation. I am not certain about the ESRI. If we are to have balanced regional development, we need to stop the growth of Dublin over the next 20 or 25 years. I think Deputy Rabbitte will agree that we do not want to have 2 million people, from a total population of 5 million, living in Dublin. I do not suggest that decentralisation will bring an end to all of these problems — I am not making that argument. We must ensure Dublin city is not crippled by its population. This does not happen in other countries. Balanced regional development means the State has a role to play in moving people and industry to the regions in every possible way and we must be aggressive in doing so. The 10,000 people represent a small part because, even if they went tomorrow, they are only 10,000 out of 4.3 million people. We must stop the strangulation of the Dublin area which is neither good for Dublin nor the rest of the country.
The latest report by the decentralisation implementation group, DIG, points out that there is a low level of interest among what is described as expert staff. Is this reflected in the Department of the Taoiseach? Does the Taoiseach recognise this point? Can the Taoiseach tell us if there are further decentralisation plans relating to staff in his Department and will further staff be taking up opportunities during the remainder of 2006 and 2007? It is expected that a further 2,000 relocations will occur during this period.
The Taoiseach made a statement on the State agencies earlier. Can he clarify his response regarding those agencies under the control of his Department?
I think more people will apply to be moved under decentralisation and 20% of the Department has already moved. The Minister for Finance informs me there are 34 locations under development around the country and, as this rolls out, people from my Department will join the list as has happened over the past number of years.
Some specialists might also move. Some of the agencies in my Department have specialists and very talented people. However, they are not scientists or microbiologists as in other Departments and agencies. People may leave from the area of statistics and this could create difficulties which would necessitate retraining.
The Marine Institute moved to Galway and only a small number of employees chose not to move as a result. A very technical area of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has moved to Clonakilty. These things work themselves out over time. There must be a means of negotiation and, with negotiation, the process will work.
Benchmarking Awards.
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which has accrued to his Department in respect of the payment of the benchmarking pay awards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28211/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the cost of benchmarking to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34119/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
The benchmarking phases were implemented in my Department with 25% of the increase from 1 December 2001 paid in June 2003. The total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000. A further 50% of the increase was paid from 1 January 2004 at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year and the final 25% of the increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The full year cost of the increases, in total, is estimated at €800,000 for 2006.
Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, the pay increases recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body were conditional on delivery of real and verifiable outputs in relation to modernisation and flexibility. The key mechanisms for monitoring overall progress in this regard were the reports on action plans prepared by individual Departments and offices, a general review by the Department of Finance and verification by the Civil Service performance verification group. The group concluded that the progress achieved warranted payment to the grades concerned in my Department.
Over the past five years the Government has recruited almost 40,000 extra staff and paid around €1.3 billion through the benchmarking process. This includes the Department of the Taoiseach where, I understand, legal staff has doubled and communications staff has increased by 55%. The Taoiseach's Department will spend €143 million more this year than when he came to office and most of that is related to salaries.
The Taoiseach refers to real and verifiable outputs and suggests the basis for determining these lay in the action plans produced by each Department and assessed by the Civil Service performance verification group. Regarding benchmarking payments in the Taoiseach's Department, what were the three priority outputs that were to be achieved under the benchmarking programme? What are the three essential differences people can see in the Department relating to increased efficiency and better public service?
Everyone had to put forward a plan and the plan I submitted relating to my Department covered four broad areas on which management and staff collaborated. Those areas were human resource management, financial management, quality customer service and technological innovation. More competitive promotion processes were introduced while the performance management and development system, PMDS, relating to the management of performance in the civil service was implemented. There was a central timeframe. The process related to training and to implementing the guidelines set down by the Department of Finance regarding performance management and lowering staff levels in the Department by 2% through individuals taking on new roles and functions and integrating sections.
The Department introduced a new financial management system, the Oracle programme, designed to give more information and control. It deals with costs and inputs and allows for more transparency such as allocating cost heads to individuals. People in the Department are now able to identify where money is going, not only to sections but to individuals. This programme has been fully implemented in the Department and allows for much better monthly reporting than previously. It fits in with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and so on. The method of reporting achieved is far better as it is meaningful for individual sections in that they can see areas for which they are responsible. It has improved efficiency and service.
A customer charter was developed, as was the case in other Departments. Annual customer surveys are now conducted to measure the Department's performance against commitments made in the charter. Those who use the Department are given a questionnaire seeking opinions on service and everything from time calls to memorandums.
The e-Cabinet project is an innovative system, electronically supported, and enabling the administrative process associated with the preparation for and conduct of Government business. The Department has won awards for this system. It was mainly implemented by civil servants with some outside expertise.
These are some of the advances made in the Department which were put forward to the verification group and are now fully implemented.
Will the systems of performance measurement in operation in the Taoiseach's Department change in advance of the next round of benchmarking? Is the Taoiseach planning any initiatives to award top performers in his Department? Are his special advisers covered by benchmarking in the same way as other staff in the Department? There is a particular issue regarding contract workers and benchmarking. There is often short notice — one could almost say no notice — given on the expiry or renewal of contracts. Given that many of the people involved are parents and have other responsibilities, is it possible to determine whether benchmarking can cover contract workers in the Department of the Taoiseach? Can better notice be given regarding the expiry of contracts?
I will examine that. Currently, contract workers are not really in the system. Like advisers, they operate on a different contract basis. If one was a contract worker for a number of years, one would fall considerably behind his or her benchmarked colleagues.
The Department's management group is examining the initiatives it would like to have included in the Civil Service performance verification group's deliberations in the next round. This would include extending it into e-Cabinet and Cabinet sub-committees. The Cabinet element and movement within Departments have been well bedded down. However, they are examining other extensions that are three years away. Issues ranging from the knowledge society to dealing with EU business have been raised in the customer surveys. There are other areas where Departments see potential for further modernisation. There are also regular circulars on modernisation issued by the Department of Finance to other Departments.
No decision has yet been made on the operation of bonus payments for civil servants, but it is an issue. In the last round of benchmarking, those who prepared the report stated that the issue of bonuses should be examined and the Government should take a view on it. It is a difficult issue to deal with and it was not dealt with in the last round. I am in favour of it in principle, but we need to examine how it can work best. If senior officials within one Department were to receive bonus payments, what does it say about senior officials in another Department? Perhaps the former were dealing with hotter political issues or more difficult legislation. Those are some of the problems that arise. On the other hand, it is somewhat unfair if an able individual is out-performing his or her colleagues, yet only gets paid the same as everybody else. The practice in industry is fairer in that if one is a top performer, one will be in line for bonuses. It is not an unreasonable position. Because the whole theory of benchmarking is based on the comparison between industry and the public service, the issue of bonuses is one that needs to be addressed. While I do not have the answer as to how this can be done, it requires further examination.
Programmes for Government.
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28212/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress in the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government, particularly as it affects his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28320/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the annual report on progress in the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28462/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing An Agreed Programme for Government. [29221/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30672/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach to report on the implementation to date of An Agreed Programme for Government; the reason no progress report on the implementation was published in summer 2006, as had been the practice in previous years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30878/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 13, 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 which sets out the progress to date in implementing every commitment contained within the programme for Government. The last edition of the Government progress report was published in the summer of 2005. It is our intention to publish a further report in early 2007.
It is the responsibility of each individual Minister to ensure that the commitments in the programme that fall within his or her particular 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 its work, my Department works closely with other Departments and offices. Individual Ministers are of course 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.
The programme for Government specifically promised to reduce primary school class sizes so that the average class size for under-nines would be 20 students. Today, 99,464 primary school children are taught in classes of between 30 and 34 children. A further 8,931 primary school children have class sizes of 35 to 39, while a further 162 children are in classes of more than 40——
The Chair is reluctant to intervene, but those are questions specifically for the line Minister. General questions are acceptable at this time.
This is a general question on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government.
It is a detailed question on education which would be more appropriately put to the line Minister.
The Taoiseach has briefing notes that are the same size as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He is well able to answer this question.
That is not the point. Unfortunately, he is bound by Standing Orders just as the Chair is bound to implement them.
I want the Taoiseach to report on the implementation of primary school class sizes. The Government made a specific commitment and it has not been honoured. If the State cannot provide an appropriate educational base for its children then it has failed. We should not have had a commitment like this in the educational sector——
That is not a question.
——if it was not going to be lived up to. What is the Taoiseach's response on the commitment to ensure 80% of all earners would pay tax at the standard rate? Where does this commitment stand? Will it be honoured by 6 December?
On the general agreement in respect of medical cards which was a central plank of the health element of the programme for Government——
Again, this is a question for the appropriate line Minister.
——200,000 full medical cards were promised. This was watered down to doctor-only cards in 2005, and only 12,000 have been delivered in the past two years. These are three areas which were major planks of the programme for Government and I would like the Taoiseach to comment on all three.
They are the responsibility of the line Ministers.
You want him to say that this is a detailed question for the line Minister.
I do not. I do not have any control over what he says.
The Taoiseach is well able to answer these questions and the Chair should allow him to do so.
I appreciate that, but questions that are for line Ministers should be left to them.
It is in the programme for Government.
You are trying to influence the Taoiseach's response.
May I give a general response, a Cheann Chomhairle, without going into detail? We have substantially reduced class sizes and the pupil-teacher ratio. We have transformed the learning environment for those with special needs and have launched major initiatives to tackle educational disadvantage. We have put resources into all communities. There are thousands of extra teachers and teaching assistants. We have reduced the pupil-teacher ratio far below the norm in disadvantaged areas. This was a policy objective. We believed we should put teachers into schools in disadvantaged communities and it has worked successfully. One may say that this should be done across the board in a way that does not affect disadvantaged schools, but class sizes in most disadvantaged areas are now 15 and under. That was the right thing to do. It does not mean that we will not continue to reduce class sizes in other areas.
On the medical card issue, not alone have we increased the numbers significantly but when people are working there is not the same demand for medical cards, although we also moved to a net pay basis, changing all the criteria. That was done with the medical cards system before we introduced the doctor-only cards. It is interesting that has not achieved the forecast numbers because income levels are far higher than the numbers based on the CSO figures a few years ago. If they were not, they would have claimed those cards. There have been three advertising campaigns for doctor-only medical cards but they still have not achieved the figures forecast.
We have returned more than €5 billion to the people in tax reductions. We have cut the standard rate and continue to make progress on the 18% rate but the important things were to improve the entry point system, which is now €200, which we said we would do, and to remove minimum pay from the tax net. There are approximately 750,000 people who are not eligible for tax at all as against 350,000 seven years ago. The 80:20 issue has not been achieved but the targeted measures to help single people, married couples, those with families, people with low incomes and those on the minimum wage were more important objectives.
In the Taoiseach's main reply, he stated it was the responsibility of the individual Minister to oversee the implementation of specific commitments in the programme for Government. Has the Taoiseach seen any situation arising across his Department's areas of responsibility where commitments in the programme for Government have been diluted, torn up or shredded by other agencies entrusted to carry out the commitments made by his Department in that programme? To illustrate the point, I instanced the commitment under the health portfolio to create 3,000 additional public hospital beds. Professor Drumm of the HSE has stated that these are not needed and will not be pursued. Has the Taoiseach seen that situation apply under his Department's aegis? What will the Taoiseach do about the specific instance I have cited?
As it falls to the Taoiseach's Department to anchor same, will he advise us why it was decided not to publish an annual progress report on the implementation of the programme for Government this year, as has happened each year since 2002?
I hope no one shreds any of the initiatives or proposals from my Department but from time to time people would have a different means or timescale for implementing them. That is always an issue we must try to resolve. The timescales and formats are not always as we set out in the programme for Government; that is part of the system we must engage with. We did an annual audit to keep things under review, to keep a focus and maintain a pressure on trying as far as we could, and we do this for a high proportion of our commitments, to implement them fully or as nearly as we could.
We did not publish the review this year because we are coming to the end of the programme for Government and we decided to go to the end of 2006 before publishing. Obviously there would not be much point in publishing the programme in August next year because at that stage the life of the current Government will be over.
What about the hospital beds? That is a huge dichotomy.
The view of the management of the HSE is that 3,000 beds are not required. Its view is that the utilisation of existing beds, plus the 1,300 new beds that have been delivered by this Government and 450 that are planned, should, with better utilisation and more day cases, fulfil the need.
When we were talking about 3,000 beds we were not talking about day cases being where they are now — there are 500,000 such cases per year. At the time, in 1999 to 2000, when the survey took place, there were fewer than 100,000 day cases. The HSE management's argument is that because day cases are being used to this extent, the formulation of figures that gave the 3,000 is not required. This is the international trend, with the utilisation of day cases, more flexible working and more use of technology giving the turnover that means that level of beds is not required.
Less than half the number cited by the Taoiseach has been provided.
The Government's environmental commitments clearly state that it will implement greenhouse gas taxation policies on a phased, incremental basis. Can we take it that commitment has been shredded and will not be implemented at all? What about the commitment to extend the levy on plastic bags to other areas such as non-reusable packaging? Has that been shredded or does it still stand? The Government stated that it would implement and improve, where necessary, the full range of ethics legislation. When the Government made that commitment, did the Taoiseach have in mind the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916? Its implementation is open to question.
Road safety continues to be a very serious area, with 99 people killed in road traffic accidents in the first three months of the year. The programme for Government states that the Government will introduce road safety and safe driving instruction in the secondary school curriculum. Will renewed emphasis be placed on this and can we expect to see a serious change in that before the election given the nature of the road accidents that are taking place?
Generally, is it not the case that, in respect of the programme for Government, in critical areas like health, social housing and education, the Government is nowhere near meeting its targets? We were supposed to take four out of every five taxpayers from the top rate of tax. We were supposed to supply 200,000 medical cards but the Taoiseach says the reason for the minuscule take-up of the doctor-only card is because of pay rates and the economy. That does not accord with the incidence of low pay that all the figures show is prevalent in this economy.
Social housing as a proportion of housing output and given demand was higher in the 1970s. Progress towards the commitment on a pupil-teacher ratio of 20:1 in schools in terms of primary children under nine is way off target. Is it not the case that the targets set by Government four and a half years ago are nowhere near to being met?
The commitment on transport states that the Government will develop the metro for Dublin on a PPP basis, making the maximum use of private finance and achieving a link to Dublin Airport by 2007.
I do not think Deputy Rabbitte is suggesting that we said we would have it all built by 2007. We were not trying to do that.
The Government should get the press release done.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, recently did a very detailed update on environmental issues. Across almost 50 measures there has been substantial progress and success in a range of areas. We will continue, as long as we are in office, to implement these measures.
There is a long list of actions taken to improve road safety. On the particular matter mentioned by Deputy Sargent about looking at building road safety into the schools programme, particularly for transition year, I am not sure of the exact position but it is still being developed and examined to try to make the actual driving end of it part of the curriculum for transition year students, rather than just what happens at present where it is part of the education system with road safety lectures and films and so on. I think there is potential to do that.
The point I made on medical cards and the doctor-only medical card figures was that, after three significant campaigns, if the income levels were below the ratios, people would have taken up the cards. People who are suffering poverty or difficulties have full medical cards. There has been a low number of doctor-only cards but this has to mean that the income levels did not fulfil the criteria, even though the figures at the time would have shown that we should have taken in an enormous amount. Even after three campaigns that has not been the case. Those income figures also apply to a number of other areas in social welfare.
On social housing, it is correct to say that in the 1970s we built proportionally more social housing against the total but let us be honest, the answer to that is that people were leaving the country at a rate of knots and there was hardly any private housing. In one year — I think it was 1983 or 1984 — out of 24,000 houses built about six were built in the public sector. That is because we had 20% unemployment and emigration was running at 50,000 a year. The position now is that out of 90,000 new houses, first-time buyers buy about half or 45% of those. It is an entirely different position. This year, between one scheme and another in affordable housing, we are proportionally benefiting a very high number of people but proportionate against 90,000. That is only playing with figures if we are honest.
On a general point, across the range of Government services, whether it is taxation — where we have cut the standard rate of income tax from 27% to 20% and the top rate from 48% to 42%; the entry point to the tax system is now €300; earners are exempt in huge numbers; and people on low pay are not paying any tax — or in education including the range of services and school buildings, the number of teachers, special needs teachers, home liaison teachers etc., the Government has substantially delivered on a very demanding programme. It has been able to do that at a time when we were still able to cut the national debt, still have Government surpluses, still be able to avoid paying huge amounts of money on interest and put money away for the social welfare difficulties of the future when we will have an older community. That has been an enormous success and is recognised as such inside and outside this country.
Did the Taoiseach indicate that the carbon levy was or was not——
We must move on to requests under Standing Order 31.
I seek clarification.
We are well over time. The Chair has been generous to Deputy Sargent this morning.
I do not want the Taoiseach to mislead the House. He stated the Government was implementing all the recommendations. Does that include the carbon levy?