Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost in 2009 of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46578/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the costs incurred by the communications unit within his Department during 2008; the projected costs for 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3143/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The projected cost of the communications unit in 2009 is €294,083, with €153,038 being a direct cost to my Department and €47,005 on average being borne by three other Departments which have staff seconded to the unit. The cost for the unit in 2008 was €302,235. The role of the communications unit is under continuous review in terms of its efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Following a review of the unit's work, in conjunction with an audit of Departments' usage of external media monitoring companies, various possibilities were explored with a view to improving efficiency, eliminating duplication and implementing cost savings. In order to assess whether a viable alternative solution is available that would achieve these objectives, the Department of the Taoiseach issued a tender for a centralised Government contract for the provision of a press cutting and media monitoring service for all Departments.
Currently, some Departments have individual contracts with media monitoring companies to provide them with media notifications specific to their areas. In order to ensure that the most efficient and effective service is utilised across Departments, it was decided to explore the appointment of a single provider that could provide a viable solution, leading to cost savings across the service. Tenders received are currently being considered and a decision whether to proceed on this basis will be made shortly.
These questions may seem somewhat irrelevant following Leaders' Questions which dealt with issues on a larger scale. The last time I raised this issue the Taoiseach said the communications unit was under continual review and that the Department had tendered for a centralised system to be provided by a single provider. Has that matter been concluded? Was a tender received and has it been accepted? Will we see a centralised single provider looking after this area?
Tenders have been received and are currently being considered. No decision has been taken yet. A decision on whether to proceed on this basis will be taken shortly.
Given all that is happening with cuts in public expenditure, has the Taoiseach any plans to get rid of the unit?
I have been examining whether a viable alternative solution that would achieve the same objectives as the unit is available. I issued a tender for a centralised Government contract for the provision of a press cutting and media monitoring service for all Departments. Tenders are being considered currently and a decision will be taken shortly.
The unit is just a listening post for the Government and its use has been questionable from the beginning. Ministers and their immediate staff are perfectly capable of reading newspapers themselves and there is no need for others to read them for them or send them on transcripts, copies or faxes. At a time when teaching assistants are being removed from special needs children, the book grant is being taken away from disadvantaged children and vaccinations for 12 year old girls are withdrawn, the communications unit is a luxury the State can do without. The Taoiseach and his Ministers would be well able to live without it. I am aware the amount saved would not be large in the overall context, but shutting down the unit would be a signal that the Government is cutting its costs and expenditure at a time when other people are being asked to cut theirs.
I am reviewing the situation to try and centralise the work. The unit does important work. The Government must be able to deal with the output of the multiple media that exist now, which produce a greater output than even five years ago. We must have an interface with the media to do that job. This unit is part of that interface and it provides services in that regard to the Government. I am examining whether we can do that work more cost effectively.
Over the years we have exhausted any useful line of questioning with regard to the communications unit and it is difficult to find any new angle. The argument for the retention of the unit is also exhausted. Like Deputy Gilmore, I put it to the Taoiseach that role of the unit is null. Would the Taoiseach agree that we should now depend on the Government press office for this work? Given that each Department also has press officers in situ, does he agree that the communications unit is unnecessary triplication of what is required in terms of getting Departments’ messages across? Does he not agree it is time to close the door on the unit?
I do not agree because I have not yet reached that conclusion. I have indicated the work being undertaken by the unit and the ways and means by which we can get the work done more effectively. I have sought a tender, which is being considered, and we will take it from there.
How many people work in the communications unit? Is there liaison between the communications unit in the Taoiseach's Department and similar units in other Departments?
I indicated the salary level in my reply. The total cost is approximately €294,000, but approximately €45,000, on average, is borne by three other Departments with staff seconded to the unit. In previous responses I indicated the number of employees in the unit, namely, two executive officers, one staff officer, a clerical officer and there are two vacancies.
Do they liaise with other such units in other Departments?
As I indicated in my reply, they provide a function across Departments as well as to the Department of the Taoiseach. The idea is to try and improve communications arrangements for the many demands on Departments on an ongoing basis.
Programme for Government.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress to date in respect of the implementation of those elements of the programme for Government for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46582/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46599/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress to date with regard to the implementation of those areas of the programme for Government for which his Department has line responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3145/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself at the rate of implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3146/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
An Agreed Programme for Government 2007-2012 is, as its title suggests, a programme of priorities to be delivered over a five-year period. Progress in delivering the programme is kept under review. The Department of the Taoiseach website published, on 24 September 2008, statements regarding the progress made by Departments in implementing each of the commitments in the programme.
When the Taoiseach announced the national development plan he stated it would be delivered in full, on time and on budget. Clearly, it is based on projections for economic growth that are a distant memory. I would like to support the Taoiseach here. Given the state in which we are now, is it possible to concentrate on elements from the plan which are labour intensive such as building schools, smaller road contracts or public works of one kind or another? These could employ very sizeable numbers of people and would be a confidence booster in their own way. They would get people back to work and give them a sense of respect and they could make a contribution to the economy.
Every local authority in the country should be in a position to employ sizeable numbers of people. The salary scales might not be that great but if one will pay €250 or €230 to people on the dole it would be far better to get productive work from them with a contribution or assistance from local authorities. Has the Government considered the possibilities for employment in the shorter term on this type of contract? While the development programme itself contains more than 500 commitments many of them, as the Taoiseach knows, cannot and will not be achieved for a very long time.
We have sought to identify labour intensive projects and we have re-oriented some work being done in this respect, including increasing allocations for schools. A broad estimate of the total number employed through the capital investment programme is 100,000.
With regard to local authorities and the question of how one can provide alternatives to receipt of unemployment benefit, Ministers are examining in what way we can assist in this matter through training, the back to education programme and other such programmes within budgetary constraints and using the existing resources available across a number of Departments. We are also trying to increase the throughput of those who can gain access to these programmes.
A number of other measures could be taken at very short notice. An entire batch of apprentices in various crafts and trades are blocked. In the system that operates at present an employer sponsors an apprentice who then goes to FÁS and outreach education centres or colleges of education. In many cases, the employers are out of business now as they may have been in the construction industry. On the other side, the decision of the Minister for Education and Science to change the pupil teacher ratio means that teachers in many of these colleges of education will be gone by September.
Last week, I was with Deputy Barrett in Deputy Gilmore's constituency visiting the Dún Laoghaire College of Further Education. I suggest this system could be changed so that apprentices would be able to complete their apprenticeships through the colleges of further education in cases where employers go out of business and where there is nobody else in the region. It would mean they receive a piece of paper which is an international qualification. They should be allowed to do this.
The Taoiseach should speak with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs about the restriction on the back to education allowance. A range of people now out of work want to return to education to pursue a career but they are blocked by the system because they must sign on the dole for six or nine months before they can take on a course for which they might be well-qualified and which would keep them occupied in pursuing an alternative career. These suggestions could free up a number of places at very little cost to the Government.
I understand that we are making arrangements to lessen the time which those made redundant must wait to avail of back to education schemes. With regard to apprentices, arrangements are being made by the Tánaiste in her Department to ensure those in the process of completing their apprenticeships and who may become unemployed as a result of the downturn can continue with programmes in colleges to be able to complete their apprenticeships and obtain qualifications.
I thank Deputy Kenny for his assistance with my constituency work. I am sure he was well received when he visited the Dún Laoghaire College of Further Education.
Deputy Barrett mentioned Deputy Gilmore's name.
It was only days after I visited Castlebar.
It was not a reciprocal visit in that sense.
Deputy Kenny is very welcome.
The Deputies should have gone to Mullingar for a cup of coffee.
Is this the Dún Laoghaire accord?
I agree with Deputy Kenny's point on educational opportunities for people coming out of employment. One of the difficulties now is that a cap on numbers has been operating in the further education sector for some time. This, combined with the change in the pupil teacher ratio, is causing a reduction in the number of courses being provided. The Government should examine this with regard to getting people back into education. Many people are coming out of employment but the opportunities in the further education sector are restricted because of the cap on numbers.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the programme for Government because it is now a work of fiction. When it was written it was predicated on a growth rate of 4.5%. Commentators now state the contraction in the economy might be as great as 6% this year. The programme for Government made reference to reducing class sizes but we see them being increased. It also made reference to reducing taxes but they are being increased. This year, for the first time, a formal review of the programme for Government was not published. Normally, a full compendium review is done of the programme but this did not happen this year. I understand each Department put a statement on its website about whatever progress was being made.
We now have the unusual situation where we do not have a programme for Government on which anyone can rely. We do not know what are the Government's intentions on a range of areas. Is it intended to produce a new programme for Government which will set out realistically what the Government intends to do in whatever little time it may have left in office?
I assure the Deputy we intend to complete our tenure if at all possible. The programme for Government is also predicated on balanced public finances and clearly, the crisis with which we are now contending means this is a major challenge and the top priority of any Government. As Opposition parties are finding out, their sums must add up if they want to put themselves forward as a credible alternative. I notice they are having some difficulty in doing so.
With regard to the programme for Government, the priorities are being reassessed by Ministers in the context of the budgets now available to them. As Deputy Gilmore has seen, a considerable slowdown in the growth of current expenditure is unavoidable. We also have the €2 billion savings which must be completed. These could have come from social welfare services or pensions. While Deputy Gilmore agrees with the need for cuts he does not agree to any in practice. The basic point to be made is that the programme for Government will be used as a means of identifying the priorities under the new circumstances in which we now operate, recognising that all of these commitments are predicated on trying to achieve budgetary balance.
With regard to providing more places for people in higher education, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, is in discussions with institutes throughout the country with regard to the potential in the next school year to provide places and courses more suitable and appropriate to the present economic circumstances and for those becoming unemployed. There is capacity in some of our institutes to achieve this. The Minister is working away on this in liaison with them.
When did the Taoiseach last read the programme for Government and is he aware that, on the very first page, there are three key areas——
When did the Deputy last read Éire Nua?
I have probably read the programme for Government more recently that the Taoiseach and I can share with him that, on the very first page, three areas are identified as being of particular importance. These are rolling out infrastructure nationwide, combating climate change and, lo and behold, developing a fully modern patient-centred health service.
Given that the programme for Government also refers to growth of 4.5% and the roll-out of all the promises in the national development plan, does the Taoiseach agree that, in the current economic circumstances, the programme for Government no longer has relevance and requires revisitation, as I have requested recently? Does he agree that it requires more accurate reflection on what is achievable in the current circumstances? There is no point in beating a bold drum here this morning and saying we remain committed to it. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Government will not be in a position to deliver what the programme spelt out at the time of its drafting?
What will the Taoiseach do in respect of particular aspects of the programme for Government, including the statement that one of the primary aims is to optimise the value of any oil and gas finds for Ireland? Does the Taoiseach accept that, against the reality of the dodgy deal regarding the Corrib gas find and the giving away to multinational developers of any potential profit that might accrue from the development of such a find, at the expense of the Irish people, he is not presenting a real prospect, unless the Government decides to make a direct intervention on behalf of the people?
What does the Taoiseach intend to do about the commitment I mentioned in respect of the health services? Given the current trend towards privatisation and centralisation of services, does he not accept that the appropriate response at any time, but certainly in the current circumstances, and perhaps in the Taoiseach's, is to revisit the policy positions being pursued by the Government, including the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, and directed and administered by Professor Brendan Drumm, the CEO of the HSE? Is it not now time to make some gesture towards the promises contained in the programme for Government and to translate some of those promises into real deliverables, even against the backdrop of all the current difficulties? The current difficulties in regard to health might even offer the Taoiseach an opportunity to better deliver a health service in keeping with the people's wishes rather than in the interests of specific sectors within the health services.
There were a number of questions asked.
There were but I will do the best I can.
On the Deputy's first point, on capital investment, we are maintaining capital investment between 5% and 6% of GNP. This is more than twice the average in the European Union. Despite the very serious financial circumstances we face, we have maintained that commitment this year, as difficult as that is, because we believe the capital programme provides the building blocks for future growth. We could have sought to resolve our present budgetary problem simply by cutting capital expenditure out of existence but we believe it is on the current side that we must engage in further reform and achieve further efficiencies and that it is through the tax system that we must raise more money.
On the question on climate change, we continue to pursue policy. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has been doing so very well. On energy policy, I do not know whether Deputy Ó Caoláin's party supports the bringing onshore of oil and gas. It certainly does not have much interest in bringing them onshore in the west, despite the fact that all the various legal channels have been pursued. Perhaps the Deputy's idea of ownership of oil and gas for the Irish people is to leave it in the ground for another 5 million years, after which they would still own it.
No, and our idea is not to give it away either.
The Deputy's party will not be doing anything with it but will be happy in the knowledge that it is there. From our point of view——
The Taoiseach will not be as clever when the full detail of the squalid Burke deal is eventually exposed.
I am sorry, I did not hear that.
The Taoiseach can check the record.
I hope it is not on the record because I am in possession myself.
With regard to oil and gas, we have, pursuant to an Indecon study, changed and updated our oil and gas licensing arrangements in a way that will encourage exploration at the same time as seeking a return for the Irish taxpayer in respect of any resources found. These arrangements have been very much welcomed and are in line with international trends. We could have very prohibitive terms if we wished but no one would come near us to drill a bore hole in the ground. Some people's ideology is such that they believe that is a great idea, but I believe in trying to explore whatever resources we have while, at the same time, obtaining a return on investment and ensuring Irish workers can obtain employment from those resources. I hope the Deputy will change his position soon on what is happening in Mayo and allow the people there to proceed with the exploitation of a very important national resource and asset that needs to be brought onshore quickly.
With regard to the question on the health services, Deputy Ó Caoláin has a particular view of our health service with which I do not agree. We have seen many improvements in our health services despite continuing problems. With regard to cancer care in particular, we have noted that the setting up of centres of excellence is in the patients' interest. Often what is portrayed as a local interest can be in fact a vested interest. It may be a case of professionals who have built up services in various parts of the country seeking to retain them, regardless of whether there is a sufficient critical mass of activity in the units in question. There is no doubt that, in a modern health service, the need to plan strategically and provide centres of sufficient activity is critical in clinical terms and in terms of health economics. In terms of operating in the interest of patients and of having sustainable services, these are the important policy considerations.
In a range of areas, we have witnessed increased throughput, increased numbers attending hospitals, and an increase in primary care and community care provision. I am glad to say that, in respect of the administration and organisation of health services, there is recognition of the need for more local autonomy in decision making so we can have a more customised, customer-responsive service, particularly in respect of community care. I refer to the establishment of a national hospitals office, the need to consider acute hospital care on a national basis and the effort to reconfigure the delivery of services in the interest of patients and in the interest of ensuring we do not have a recurrence of some of the terrible problems articulated in this House in the past because services were not organised properly.
These are challenges that must be dealt with by any Government in the interest of patients, in spite of well organised interests to the contrary, which interests are no doubt sincere. I noted in my area the ability of people in the system to seek to influence events and this can be just as significant a factor in service delivery as what is objectively in the best interest of patients themselves.
I welcome the Taoiseach's emphasis on labour intensive infrastructural projects. School buildings were mentioned as a possibility. To what specific projects does the Taoiseach refer? Does he consider rail development labour intensive infrastructural development? If he does, will the Government include rail as a possibility to be rolled out under a new national development plan?
In regard to the north west gateway, there are question marks as to whether Project Kelvin is going ahead in terms of location rather than funding. There are issues around that. I know the Taoiseach will suggest I table a parliamentary question on the matter but I would like his office to examine the issue because it is a project that affects both sides of the Border. I ask the Taoiseach to examine that project because of the question marks hanging over it.
Other than school buildings, what specific labour intensive infrastructural projects are envisaged and does the Taoiseach consider rail development to be part of that?
All of these capital projects have a labour content but it is clear that school buildings and smaller contracts in regional areas are of assistance to smaller builders. In that context, I refer to the energy efficiency programmes and what is being done in that regard. Money is being allocated by Government for the scheme that has been announced and I understand there has been a good response to it. That is an indication of what can be done for localised building-type projects whether it is for individual housing, group housing or school and health care projects. It is important to be mindful of that.
As the Deputy suggested, I will take up Project Kelvin with the Minister and see what exactly is the situation. I will let him know the position.
Rail is an important part of the Transport 21 programme. In the next few years in particular we will see a considerable investment in that area as outlined in the plan. I know the Deputy has a particular interest in trying to extend rail to his constituency and I have heard him articulate that on a number of occasions in the House. However, the priorities at the moment are to try to meet the existing commitments we have in that area. We will have a tough job meeting existing commitments rather than seeing what other possibilities there may be.
In the agreed programme for Government there are three sentences pertaining to Oireachtas reform. What are the Taoiseach's plans for reform of the Dáil and Oireachtas? Is he happy with the current arrangements and procedures in the Dáil and Standing Orders as set down? Does the Taoiseach have any plans to make changes or is he happy to let the Dáil continue as it is and as it has been doing for many decades?
I have been here a couple of decades myself and there have been changes from time to time. I know the Deputy has a genuine interest in this area. The Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey, is working on what proposals the Government will bring to the table for consideration on Oireachtas reform. It is an ongoing item. Unfortunately, I have said in the past that previously Oireachtas reform has meant to what extent the Government can accommodate the Opposition. In terms of the best use of all our time, there are definite reforms that I would like to take place that would help me do my job better. I await with anticipation what the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey, will have to say to us.
How soon does the Taoiseach expect to have proposals from Government, given the fact that it is more than a year and a half since the election when those sentences were penned in the agreed programme for Government? We have seen nothing from the Government side. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Opposition parties have put forward a number of proposals but we have heard nothing back? Will he kindly expedite the matter as soon as possible so that we can have a genuine discussion to improve the situation for all of us?
I agree. As I said, there is a working party under the direction of the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey and some Ministers who have been former Whips themselves can bring some of their experience and ideas to the table also. The working party has met and it will meet again shortly. The Ceann Comhairle, on behalf of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, has also put forward proposals and ideas and all of those are in the mix.
Is there a timescale?
Soon.
Mañana.
I wish to follow up on Deputy Kenny's question about schools. One of the best programmes introduced was the devolved scheme through which smaller schools could get jobs expedited more quickly. We recently visited Laragh school in Cavan where the prefabs have been in place for 37 years. Would it be possible to reintroduce that scheme as it has been abandoned? Such a scheme can bring in local builders and get jobs done much quicker than under the other scheme that goes through Templemore.
As the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, is sitting beside the Taoiseach, I seek a commitment that the Ulster Canal will go ahead as it is a major cross-Border project that is part of the existing programme. It is important that it would not slip in this new situation.
Pre-planning work is under way on the first section of the Ulster Canal to Clones. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has been most assiduous in trying to advance that project.
I absolutely agree. He has been.
There is also some support for the project on the other side of the Border. Co-financing will also be a great help by getting everyone to put in their euro and sterling. That will be a great opportunity to show what North-South co-operation can do. I am sure Deputy Crawford will do all he can in that regard also.
Let the boats take to the water.
I agree the summer school scheme has been a good one. It was devised at the Cabinet table and is a practical response to the need to empower local boards of management to get on with work themselves rather than going through rigid departmental procedures that are time consuming if nothing else. A significant amount of remedial work in particular has been done under the summer works scheme. Literally, thousands——
The devolved scheme.
I mean devolved. Hundreds of projects have been carried out under the devolved scheme. I have seen many instances of it in my constituency. Such projects gives a great sense of ownership to the community rather than it being something that comes from on high. It allows many people with various skill sets in local communities to do the work and, as Deputy Crawford indicated, do it more cost effectively with the flexibility and know-how on the ground at home that brings a lot of community support for those projects, which also involve much fundraising. It is great. It is another example of how we try to release local initiative, which is something I agree with in many respects in regard to many schemes.