Vol. 664 No. 3
106 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for the delay in processing applications in respect of jobseeker’s allowance and jobseeker’s benefit; the reason there are variations in processing times across the country; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36035/08]
The Department is committed to providing a high quality service to all its customers. This includes ensuring that applications are processed and that decisions on entitlement are issued as expeditiously as possible having regard to the eligibility conditions which apply.
These conditions vary between the two jobseeker schemes and involve, among other things, the need to establish the person's social insurance record, establish the person's identity or place of habitual residence and the assessment of means where appropriate. In some cases delays arise where people fail to supply all pertinent information in support of their application.
The level of inflows to the live register over the period January to September 2008, inclusive, was 311,660 as compared to 220,652 over the corresponding period last year, representing an increase of over 41%. The average weekly inflow was 7,991 as compared to 5,658 in 2007. At 5 October 2008, there were 39,133 jobseeker payment claims pending in local and branch offices, made up of 16,857 jobseeker benefit and 22,276 jobseeker allowance claims. The average processing time for applications in September was three weeks for jobseeker's benefit claims and six weeks for jobseeker's allowance claims.
The Deputy will be aware that anyone who is under financial pressure while awaiting a decision on their claim for a jobseeker's payment can apply for supplementary welfare allowance which is subject to a means test and other qualifying conditions. The Department delivers a frontline service through a network of 61 local offices and 65 branch offices countrywide. Local offices are staffed by civil servants while the branch offices operate under a contract for service. All decisions on claims are made in the local office. The overall performance in any individual office in processing claims can be adversely affected by a wide variety of factors, including increased inflow of claims, staff vacancies and the duration of such vacancies, and the turnover of staff in the office.
The Department has put a range of measures in place to deal with the extra workload arising from the increase in the live register. These include additional posts assigned, use of temporary staff to fill vacancies pending the appointment of permanent staff, the extension of temporary staff contracts in certain offices, increased overtime and the prioritisation of work. These measures are being reviewed on a continual basis.
It is clear the measures being taken are not working because the figures the Minister gave me for October more or less correlate to the figures I have for September. Therefore the measures taken are not decreasing the queues. The Minister said failure to supply all pertinent information can be one of the reasons for the difficulties. Are the people of Galway or Navan particularly incapable of filling in the forms compared to those in other places where there is only a three to six-week delay, depending on the application? There is almost a four-month delay for those applying through the office in Galway. How does the Minister intend to deal with this?
Is the Minister aware that unemployment is at its highest in a decade, a decade in which her party has been in power? It is expected there will be 60,000 more people on the live register next year. In view of the four-month delay in some offices, how will the system cope when there are 60,000 more applications?
The people who were being assessed in September are not necessarily the people being assessed in October.
The Minister has made no improvement in the situation.
Obviously, there would be a throughput of new people. I agree with the Deputy there are unacceptable delays in some offices. Those offices are being examined by the Department with a view to establishing what additional staffing, overtime or temporary staff are required. A high level review of staffing generally is being finalised and should conclude next week. Additional posts have been allocated and there is an increase over this period last year in the number of people working in this service.
I am conscious of the fact that any delay can be difficult for the applicant. There is a six-week average processing time for the jobseeker's allowance because it requires a much more in-depth review of people's financial circumstances and a three-week average time for the jobseeker's benefit.
Deputy Hanafin is the Minister and if the delay is unacceptable, it means she is not doing her job and ensuring it is dealt with. Does she realise that not getting jobseeker's allowance or benefit pushes families into an almost inescapable poverty trap? They fall behind with ESB, gas and telephone payments. They also fall behind with mortgage repayments, car loans and credit union loans. They are stuck in that cycle. They can go cap in hand and look for a supplementary welfare allowance, but they want the proper allowance and it is up to the Minister to ensure they can get it within an acceptable timeframe.
The budgetary changes announced by the Minister last week will lead to even more bureaucracy within the social welfare system. When will we see an acceptable timeframe in which these services will be delivered?
I do not envisage the budgetary changes will put an added burden on any of the administrative measures that need to be taken.
It will put a burden on the people involved.
Staffing is a matter for the Department and the Secretary General, and that is the reason the high level review is being undertaken.
The Minister, not the Secretary General, is in charge of the Department.
No Minister determines how many people go to a particular office or who those people are. It is interesting to hear on the one hand that people are looking for a cutback in the number of people working in the Civil Service or public service but on the other they want to see more staff allocated.
I never said that, I said I wanted to see an improvement in respect of the timeframe.
There are 1,343 people working actively on this. There is huge pressure on staff in many offices. We recognise that and that is the reason we have taken the measures of allocating extra people, providing overtime and putting in temporary staff. This is being kept under constant review, particularly in the offices where there is a particular delay. I repeat, nobody need be destitute or in poverty. People can go to the social welfare officer for supplementary assistance.
107 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the improvements she will make to the back to education allowance and the back to work enterprise allowance in order that unemployed people can avail of these supports within a few months of their signing on the live register. [35949/08]
A range of education and employment supports are available to persons in receipt of welfare payments to assist and facilitate their return to the active labour force. These measures include the back to work allowance and back to education allowance.
The back to education allowance is designed to encourage people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and, therefore, their prospects of returning to the active work force. It enables qualified people who have been getting a social welfare payment to continue to receive a payment while pursuing an approved full-time education course.
In general, to qualify for participation an applicant must be at least 21 years of age and must have been in receipt of a social welfare payment immediately prior to commencing an approved course of study for at least six months for a second level course and 12 months for a third level course. The 12-month requirement is reduced to nine months for people participating in the national employment action plan, NEAP. People who are awarded statutory redundancy may access the scheme immediately, provided an entitlement to a relevant social welfare payment is established prior to commencing an approved course of study.
The back to work allowance scheme is designed to assist the long-term unemployed and other social welfare recipients to return to work. There are two strands to the scheme, the back to work enterprise allowance for the self-employed and the back to work allowance for employees. The scheme is designed to support people who would not otherwise be able to return to the workforce for financial reasons. To qualify for this allowance, the person must be in receipt of a qualifying payment for a specific length of time immediately prior to commencing employment.
The requirement to be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for a minimum period has always been a feature of the back to education and back to work schemes, which were designed to recognise the special difficulties that people who have been unemployed for a long time can face when attempting to gain a foothold in the labour market.
I will continue to monitor the schemes but I believe that, overall, they continue to meet their objectives and that the time requirements ensure that limited resources are targeted at those who are most in need.
Does the Minister accept the budget should be judged on two issues, whether it is fair and whether it helps the economy and jobs? The public has given a clear answer on the first and the budget is clearly not fair. With regard to jobs, not only is the Government making matters more difficult for people who find themselves unemployed in terms of cutting their entitlements, but the budget has done nothing to help them to get back into employment.
Does the Minister accept the priority must be to ensure that people who become unemployed now do not become the long-term unemployed of the future? What is the justification for the time lag between a person becoming unemployed and being able to avail of the back to education or back to enterprise allowances? Surely in this day and age the priority must be to try to enable unemployed people to get back into work, enterprise or training as quickly as possible. Why does the Minister maintain those excessively restrictive rules?
The Deputy is correct in saying that the overall aim of the budget and of the Government is to ensure that people return to work. The responsibility for that rests with all of us. She will have recognised that the budget contained specific measures for small companies and new start-up businesses, and taxation measures that come under the ambit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, all of which are important. The budget's overall taxation package will also ensure that we can continue to attract investment into the country. Measures such as the research and development grants ensure that Ireland remains an attractive place for people to come and provide employment. The Deputy is right that employment is the key and that was the overall consideration.
Education is also key. Back to education is just one of the areas in which we can support people. It is encouraging that approximately 8,000 people are participating in that scheme. In early September, with the help and support of Brian Mooney of the Institute of Guidance Councillors, all the facilitators throughout the country were invited to Dublin to make them aware of the latest developments in education so that they can actively advise people as to where they can turn to improve their skills and education.
Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.
I believe that was a very positive contribution. It is also very important that the back to education scheme facilitates people on social welfare. The Deputy will be well aware that a few years ago there was serious abuse of the scheme, not, let it be said, by unemployed people——
I call the Deputy if I may, Minister, please.
——but by people using Ireland as a base to try to get this scheme.
The qualifying criteria for these schemes were designed in a different era for a very different problem. Why must a person who becomes unemployed wait at least 12 months before being permitted to avail of the back to education allowance in order to attend a third level course? Surely an unemployed person should be encouraged in every way possible to avail of further training to enable him or her to apply for new jobs in the future.
What on earth is the justification for requiring an unemployed person to wait for at least two years before he or she has an entitlement to the back to enterprise allowance? Surely we should be doing everything we possibly can to ensure that unemployed people get back into education and back into enterprise as quickly as possible. There can be no justification for those time lags. Why will the Minister not reconsider those?
There is a justification for having timelines. For example, we do not want someone who has just completed his or her leaving certificate examinations drawing the dole.
The Minister knows that is not what I am talking about.
It does and can happen, but we do not want it to happen.
I am not talking about the age limit, I am talking about the time lag.
They could then remain unemployed——
Why does the Minister force people to remain unemployed for longer than they need to be?
An t-Aire without interruption, please.
That is what she is doing.
We do not want to have a student complete the leaving certificate in June——
Nobody is talking about that.
——and be unemployed until October which would be three or four months.
The Minister knows that is not what I am talking about.
No, but a person could be unemployed for a shorter period——
I am not talking about 18 year olds.
——and yet not be a legitimate person to benefit from the back to education allowance.
What about 40 year olds?
What is the reason for the time lag?
That would be one reason for having a longer timeframe. People who get statutory redundancy can access it immediately.
What about the people who do not get statutory redundancy?
That is one group that can.
Many people do not get statutory redundancy.
The people who are on the employment action plan can get it after nine months. It is important that we ensure it is targeted. I am open to keep this under review. We have seen abuse of it in the past. I am afraid that if we shorten it too much, particularly to three or four months after doing the leaving certificate, we would end up with the wrong people getting it.
The Government has done that for people who get statutory redundancy.
The time for this question has concluded.
Statutory redundancy applies to people who have been in employment——
——and not people who have been in full-time education and who are only using——
Many people losing their jobs now unfortunately do not get statutory redundancy.
The time for this question has expired.
The Minister is penalising them further by forcing them to wait.
They are worse off.
108 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way she will ensure that the information on 374,000 persons, whose personal data were contained on laptop computers recently stolen from her Department, is not being misused or compromised; the number of persons who have contacted her Department on this matter; if her attention has been drawn to any interference or fraud activity connected with the missing information; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36036/08]
The Department was notified in April 2007 that a laptop computer belonging to the Comptroller and Auditor General had been taken from the offices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The theft was immediately reported to the Garda. Some 16 months later, in early August 2008, the Department was informed that the laptop computer contained personal data relating to social welfare customers. The Department moved swiftly to respond to the incident and has taken all reasonable steps to minimise the concerns of the customers whose records were contained on it. Letters issued to customers informing them of the incident. A helpline was set up to answer inquires arising from this matter. An e-mail address and a post office box number were provided for written inquires.
The Department was also in contact with the Garda and payment institutions to alert them to the incident. While the Department notified the appropriate banks about the incident, individuals whose bank details were included on the laptop computer were advised, as an added assurance, to check their bank statements to establish if there had been any unusual activity.
The Department worked closely with the Data Protection Commissioner regarding his response to this incident. The commissioner welcomed the manner in which the Department addressed the issue by writing to those directly affected and establishing a dedicated helpdesk to provide further information and assistance as required. He stated publicly that he considered that this approach represented "best practice and a truly first rate response in the circumstances".
Up to the time that the helpdesk ceased operating on 3 October, 16,500 calls had been made to the special helpline number, 161 e-mails had been received and responded to and 750 letters have been received and are being dealt with.
The information contained on the laptop computer alone would not be sufficient to access public services. Public bodies, employers and others who are authorised to use the PPS number are required to exercise diligence in properly identifying those whom they employ or with whom they transact business. Additional evidence of identity such as photographic ID, signature, mother's birth surname, PIN, password etc. is required to fulfil this purpose.
From contacts to date with the Garda and various other Government and payment institutions, there has been no indication of any systematic misuse of the information contained on the laptop computer during the 18 months since the theft occurred.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Department has been engaged in a programme of continual development and deployment of measures to enhance data security. Since this incident came to light, the Department has further reviewed and enhanced its protocols for the transfer of data to third parties, including the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. All bulk data are now transferred in an encrypted format in accordance with the Department's external party electronic data transfer policy.
Has there been any non-systematic misuse of the information from the laptop computer? The laptop computer was stolen from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Were departmental officials made aware of its theft when it was stolen? What was the reason for the 16-month delay before the Minister was informed of it having been taken? There was a commitment that all laptop computers in the Department of Social and Family Affairs would be retrospectively encrypted. Has this happened with all the laptop computers in the Department? Likewise there was to be a restriction on the use of USB memory sticks. Has that measure been implemented? Will the Minister ensure that this type of information is not easily removed from the places where it needs to be accessed and that when it is removed it is all encrypted?
The laptop computer, which was the property of the Comptroller and Auditor General, was used in an office solely used by the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I understand it was just the caretaking and security people who were informed that it was lost. However, no indication was given at that time that there was information on it. It was only when the loss of subsequent laptop computers from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General came to public attention that it came to light that this amount of information was on it. That is why there was a gap in informing us. As soon as we were informed in August 2008, 16 months later, we immediately put in place the processes I have outlined to allay people's fears. Judging by the response, I believe those fears have been allayed. There is no indication that the information has been used in any way.
Obviously such an incident causes everybody to review security arrangements. Now the information is password protected on personal accounts with a secure network. There are bespoke application interfaces which can control the level and type of information to individuals who are working in the Department. People who are looking to access information from the system need to make a business case to management, which determines whether that staff member may have that information. We have also added read-access logging. The electronic data are stored in a secure computer site. The perimeter of the site is also secured. Encryption is now in place for all information that is being transferred.
Is encryption now in place on all the Department of Social and Family Affairs laptop computers? Anyone who is in anyway good at this will be able to get around a password. The Minister's predecessor was questioned on a similar matter in October 2007 when there was abuse of information by a Department of Social and Family Affairs official. At the time he advised that a high-level group was constantly reviewing all aspects of controls and security management. Has this high-level group chaired by the Secretary General made a full report on the issue? A laptop was stolen in a house break in and two desktop computers were stolen from a social welfare office. Can the Minister be fully satisfied information about people is secure?
Two relevant policies were introduced recently — the external party electronic data transfer policy and the portable computing device security policy. It is now Department policy to password protect all laptops and all new laptops are encrypted. Existing laptops are being recalled for encryption.
Within what timescale will that be completed?
There are not many laptops and, therefore, it is a priority. We are also engaged in a policy to restrict the usage of USB memory devices. Staff members who need such devices will be issued with encrypted devices and future usage will be restricted to them.
Laptops are generally used to access centrally stored information. No client data is retained on laptops. It was a highly unusual situation and we asked the Comptroller and Auditor General why all the encrypted information was downloaded to a laptop and made readable. This is the issue that caused concern for people. Given changing technologies, we must keep this policy firmly under review.
109 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of social welfare recipients referred to FÁS training or employment services during the past five years; the number who successfully accessed full-time employment; the number who have since returned to social welfare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36037/08]
The national employment action plan is the Government's main welfare to work measure. It has been in operation since 1998 and proved successful in that period in assisting people on the live register back into employment. It is a preventive strategy that provides systematic engagement of the employment services with the unemployed.
The operation of the plan involves referral of people on the live register who have been unemployed for a certain period to FÁS. Currently, every person between the ages of 18 and 65 years approaching three months on the live register is referred to FÁS for interview with a view to assisting them in finding employment. Clients are given an interview time and are requested to present for interview with a FÁS employment officer at the appointed time. It is a key element of the Government's labour market policy. The employment action plan provides access to the range of employment, training and education opportunities afforded by FÁS.
In the five years ending December 2007, a total of 226,052 people on the live register were referred to FÁS under the plan. A total of 149,806 were interviewed, of whom 39,022 were placed in jobs, training or education and a further 31,401 left the live register shortly after the interview but without additional intervention from FÁS. In the period between January and August 2008, a total of 40,407 people were referred to FÁS, of whom 26,132 were interviewed by the agency and 4,618 were placed in jobs, training or education. Information is not collected on those returning to the live register in a manner that would identify whether their most recent employment resulted from a FÁS job placement.
The employment action plan process is a key element in addressing the progression needs of those on the live register. It provides a stimulus to job search and affords an opportunity to explore, under professional guidance, the full range of employment and training services offered by FÁS. In addition to the plan, a range of other education and employment supports are available to persons in receipt of welfare payments. These initiatives are designed to assist and facilitate people on social welfare payments to return to the active labour force. These measures include the back to work allowance and back to education allowance, which I dealt with earlier. A team of facilitators is also in place in the Department to provide additional, more intensive assistance, for those who need it such as people who have been identified by FÁS as needing further support.
I thank the Minister for the figures. However, there is a significant gap between the number being interviewed by FÁS and the number referred to employment and training programmes. Between January and July 2008, 35,000 people were referred by the Department to FÁS of whom 1,344 were referred to agency schemes and 275 to further education and training. Why are those figures so low? The Minister stated the Department does not collate information regarding the number of people on FÁS placements who subsequently take up employment. Would it be a good idea to do so in order that we can establish what is working? It is difficult to improve an organisation if the facts are not available, although I appreciate FÁS does not come within the Minister's remit. Is the Minister happy the system is working and is effective? What changes have been made in the past year in the interaction between the Department and FÁS bearing in mind unemployment is increasing steadily?
I would like more interaction between FÁS and those on the live register. Currently, 1,620 interview slots are available and more use could be made of them. I did not outline the number of people who leave the live register when invited by FÁS for interview. That means FÁS has capacity to call more people than it anticipates turning up. Of the 40,000 clients referred to the agency by the Department between July and August this year, 26,000 were interviewed. However, 20,000 people had left the live register, which includes those who did not show for interview or who had secured employment. I have raised this issue with FÁS officials.
I also mentioned to them that I am concerned about the number of people the agency is unable to place because they need more support. That is why an additional ten facilitators were employed from September to work directly with these people to establish their needs. Do they have basic education or literacy problems? What training do they need? We are also ensuring people are recalled by FÁS more frequently than in the past. Joint meetings take place regularly between the agency and the Department to review this policy. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the successes where people have been placed in jobs, training and education. However, there is scope for more placements and that is why I have been working with the agency on this.
FÁS has a budget of €1 billion per year. Last year the Minister stated 51,500 people were referred to the agency by her Department of whom 2,763 were referred to employment and training programmes and 866 to further education. Approximately 3,600 people, therefore, were referred further by an agency with a budget of €1 billion. I appreciate it is engaged in other activities but its core function is to assist the unemployed to return to work. By any measure, that is a failure.
The Minister stated twice she appointed 50 facilitators during the summer to work with lone parents and the unemployed on a one-to-one basis, which means each facilitator must carry a caseload of 8,000 people. How can one person deal with 8,000 people and give them an opportunity to leave the live register and return to work?
The facilitators will not work with everybody. A significant number of people join the live register for a week or a month.
This involves tens of thousands of people.
FÁS identifies the people who can best benefit from this process. The additional interaction with the facilitators and education can help to support that. The aim is to deploy a facilitator in all the major offices to do that work.
They will not deal with people on a one-to-one basis.
The Deputy is correct that the FÁS budget is €1 billion. Many training programmes are undertaken that do not involve people on the live register, including those for apprentices who have a particular difficulty currently.
A difficulty that has not been solved.
The agency has adapted the courses its offers. For example, staff in its Loughlinstown centre are working closely with companies in Cherrywood to ensure they can meet their employment needs.
That is not what I asked about.
I have met FÁS officials and I will continue to meet them. There is scope for more people to be interviewed and directed into training and I intend to pursue this with them.
Nothing is happening. There is no progress.
110 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her view on the recent statement by the Combat Poverty Agency that budget 2009 fails to protect the most vulnerable in society and will impact negatively on low-income households; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [36038/08]
In the recent budget, the Government had three main priorities, namely, to restore order and stability in the public finances, to increase productivity and competitiveness and to protect the most vulnerable in our country. Social welfare was prioritised in the budget. Next year, total funding for the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be €19.6 billion. This represents an increase of €2.6 billion or 15.5% on the Estimates allocation for 2008. More than 1.7 million people and their dependants will benefit from this expenditure, including 440,000 pensioners, 345,000 ill and disabled people, more than 80,000 carers, 30,000 low income working families availing of the family income supplement and more than 580,000 families in receipt of child benefit payments.
Provision has been made for €515 million worth of improvements in social welfare rates and qualifying conditions. These include €7 extra per week for State pensioners, an extra €2 per week in the fuel allowance, with payment also being made for an additional two weeks, €6.50 extra per week for welfare recipients of working age, such as those on job seekers and illness payments, and increases in the qualified adult allowance, which maintain the value of that payment as a proportion of the personal rate. The budget also provides for an increase of €2 per week, or 8.3%, in the qualified child increase, bringing it to €26 per child per week.
The qualifying threshold for the family income supplement, FIS, is also being increased by €10 per child to benefit low income working families with children. This change will result in an average increase of approximately €6 per child and will ensure that approximately 2,000 additional families will become eligible for the payment next year. Some 18,000 more families will benefit from the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance next year.
All weekly income maintenance payments increased by amounts varying from 3% to 3.8% in the budget, thereby fully protecting people from inflation, which is predicted to average 2.5% next year. The increases are also ahead of the projected growth in gross average industrial earnings next year and are in line with the wage increases agreed by the social partners in the second phase of the national pay agreement.
In its poverty impact assessment using the ESRI's SWITCH model, the Department established that the social welfare budget proposals would lead to a reduction in the risk of poverty. At a time when it is essential that public expenditure be strictly controlled in the national interest, this increased provision for social welfare is an unambiguous statement of the Government's intention to protect the vulnerable and less well-off in society.
If anything ever showed the need for an independent agency, it is that answer. I will ask for the Minister's opinions. The Combat Poverty Agency is an advisory body that uses evidence-based proposals to combat poverty. Recently, the Minister stated that the agency was established when people needed to focus on combating poverty. Given this statement, does the Government believe that we no longer need to focus on poverty? It would be a natural conclusion to draw.
From a poverty perspective, what is the Minister's opinion on the introduction of the 1% levy? The issue is being revisited, but people on the minimum wage who earn anything else will fall under it. Is the Minister aware that, according to the Central Statistics Office, 10% of people living in consistent poverty are in employment? How will the budget's addition of a levy address this matter and help to take them out of consistent poverty?
Is the Minister aware that a low income household spends just under 50% of its total weekly income on food and fuel, which are staples? A family on an average income spends only20%. How can the Minister disagree with the conclusions drawn by the Combat Poverty Agency? As it is still a Government advisory agency, why is she not taking its views on the budget on board?
All social welfare payments are exempt from the levy. The people to whom Deputy Enright referred, workers on low incomes, may qualify for FIS. Two measures are important. The first is the increase in the threshold by €10 per week to give a net gain——
The Government gives it with one hand and takes it away with the other.
——of €6, while the second is the extension of FIS to approximately 2,000 additional families. These measures should protect a number of people.
In terms of families and children and the pressures of returning to school, an additional 18,000 families will qualify for the relevant allowance. Other details of the levy will only be seen in the Finance Bill when it is finalised by the Minister. The Government remains committed to combating poverty and the specific targets we set will remain our aims until 2012 and 2016.
Does the Minister believe that the targets will be met in the agreed timeframes? In light of the budget, the Combat Poverty Agency believes it cannot be done. Will the Minister guarantee the agency's independence now that it will be subsumed into her Department? Will the new body, be it the "Office of Social Inclusion" or so on, be able to make statements on the next budget as the Combat Poverty Agency has done on this budget?
Targets were set during a time of plenty. While we do not have the same resources, it is still our aim——
The poor are getting poorer.
——to meet those targets, as shown in the outlined figures. A certain target was set for 2012 and another for 2016, both of which are a long way off. We are working towards the targets.
No matter what my position is, I have always valued independent advice and research and evidence-based data. It is important that this trend continues in my work.
