Vol. 677 No. 4
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way, in respect of his announcement of 3 February 2009, it is intended to effect the 8% reduction in professional fees for services provided to or funded by his Department; the amount expected to be saved in his Department’s budget as a result of this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4747/09]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way, in respect of his announcement of 3 February 2009, it is intended to achieve the general administrative reductions in regard to his Department; the amount expected to be saved in his Department’s budget as a result of this process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4748/09]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the manner in which it is intended to effect the further savings in his Department announced in February 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9850/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
My Department will effect the 8% reduction in professional fees for services provided or funded by the Department. Preparations are in hand on the final arrangements to give effect to this decision and the details will be announced in due course. It is not possible to estimate the expected savings at this stage.
As a result of the recent Government decision, my Department will achieve further savings of €583,000, which is a total saving of 2.8% on my Department's overall administrative budget for 2009. These savings have been identified across a number of the Department's administrative and programme subheads, including travel and subsistence, consultancy, telecommunications services, office equipment and premises and training. My Department's Revised Estimate for 2009 is €34.603 million, which is a reduction of 8% on the 2008 Revised Estimate.
What are the services for which professional fees are paid by his Department? Is it intended that the 8% reduction in professional fees will apply to the Central Statistics Office, Office of the Attorney General and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Are professional fees incurred by the Taoiseach's private office or the private offices of his Ministers of State? If so, will the 8% reduction apply to such fees? Do professional fees include the engagement of consultancy services by the Taoiseach's Department?
On the engagement of consultancy services, as I have indicated, we have significantly reduced consultancy services in recent times. The reduction is considerably more than 8% and may be more than 50%. Some time ago, I answered a question on that specific point to that effect.
On the Deputy's specific question on professional fees, the reduction will include professional fees incurred in the following categories: services of a medical, dental, pharmaceutical, optical, aural or veterinary nature; services of an architectural, engineering, quantity surveying or surveying nature; services in accountancy, auditing or finance; services of financial, economic, marketing, advertising or other consultancies; services of a solicitor or barrister or other legal services; geological services; and training services provided on behalf of Foras Áiseanna Saothair. Those are the general areas to which the 8% across-the-board reduction in professional fees applies. I do not have specific details on how the reduction applies to my Department but I will try to obtain them if the Deputy wishes.
In terms of the application of the reduction in professional fees, I understand it will apply to all areas in which the State is being provided with professional services.
Is it intended to apply the 8% reduction to fees paid to lawyers engaged in the Moriarty tribunal? We have had questions about the tribunal, which comes within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach, on a number of occasions in the House. There is a degree of uncertainty about how much longer the tribunal will be in existence, when it will report and whether it will hold further public hearings. Will the 8% reduction apply to legal fees arising from the tribunal?
Is it intended to present a Revised Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach arising from the reductions of 8% in professional fees, the reductions in consultancy services of the order of 50% to which the Taoiseach referred and the Department's expected compliance with the more general reduction in expenditure across Departments? If so, when will it be presented?
A Revised Estimate will not be presented before the supplementary budget which will take precedence. A Department of Finance circular on the implementation of the 8% reduction in professional fees has been issued to all bodies and programmes in the Department's Vote. The Department is reviewing contracts in place for professional services to revise fees downwards by 8% from 1 March 2009 for services to be rendered on or after this date. The 8% reduction will apply to all tribunal legal fees and my Department has been in touch with the Moriarty tribunal to that effect. That is the position.
The Taoiseach indicated the reduction in outgoings on private consultancies would be greater than 8%. Is he aware of or can he confirm reports last November indicating that, collectively, Departments, including his own, were expending in the order of €1.7 million per week on private consultancy engagements, in other words, the figure for the year was in the order of €90 million?
Cé mhéad airgead a chaithfidh Roinn an Taoisigh ar sheirbhísí comhairleachta — consultancy services — i 2009? Cé mhéad airgead a chaithfidh an Rialtas go ginearálta ar na seirbhísí sin i mbliana? An bhfuil figiúr ag an Taoiseach le haghaidh 2008 chun comparáid a dhéanamh idir an méid a chaitheadh an bhliain seo caite agus an méid atá geallta ag Roinn an Taoisigh agus ag gach Roinn eile do 2009?
Caitheadh €275,000 ar sheirbhísí comhairleachta an bhliain seo caite. Tá an figiúr níos ísle — €118,000 — i mbliana de bharr cinneadh an Rialtais. The figure is, therefore, €118,000 rather than €275,000. Tá laghdú de 57% i gceist ón Meastachán a fhoilsíodh i 2008.
A small number of possible consultancy requirements for 2009 have been identified to date. I am satisfied procedures are in place which will ensure expenditure undertaken on consultancy is necessary and relevant guidelines are being followed. Every effort is made by my Department to minimise expenditure on consultancy services. However, where it is necessary to engage consultants to avail of their particular expertise or experience, the procurement of consultancy services is subject to public procurement guidelines and, where applicable, EU procurement rules and guidelines, with selection criteria geared to select the most economically advantageous tender.
It is also our policy that skills transfer from consultants to departmental staff takes place as an integral part of all consultancy engagements. The purpose of this is to increase the knowledge and expertise of departmental staff and reduce and, if possible, eliminate future dependence on consultants in the areas concerned.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as ucht na figiúirí ó Roinn an Taoisigh. The Taoiseach does not have specific, across-the-board figures on planned Government expenditure across all Departments.
Baineann na ceisteanna seo le rudaí atá faoi chúram Roinn an Taoisigh. Níl figiúirí ginearálta agam.
An bhfuil an Taoiseach sásta na figiúirí sin a fháil amach dom?
Cén figiúrí arís?
Tá mé ag caint mar gheall ar an ráiteas a cuireadh amach i mí na Samhna seo caite, which referred to €90 million in expenditure across all of the Departments. Does the Taoiseach not agree it is important that this is pointed out specifically, not only in percentage terms of intent, but in realistic terms? He has demonstrated it in the figures with regard to his own Department — I thank him for that — but if those figures are accurate, as were reported back in November, will the Taoiseach undertake to advise the various Opposition parties of the expected expenditure across all Departments in the current year so we can have the opportunity to understand and, I hope, appreciate the comparisons?
It is important to mention the context. We are talking about a total spend by Government, throughout all Departments and agencies, of €55 billion. Consultants are required for particular areas of expertise, perhaps for very complex projects and so on. Consultants are employed from time to time to protect the taxpayer's interests. If the figure of €90 million mentioned by the Deputy is correct, in the context of a total spend of €55 billion, that is around 0.1% or 0.2% of total expenditure. In an operation as complex as a modern Government, I do not believe that should be regarded automatically as being out of line with expectations, given the complexity and breadth of the work undertaken by Governments on an ongoing basis.
In the context of the savings to be effected in this area and others, has any kind of approach been made to the members of the Judiciary to suggest they voluntarily reduce their salaries by an equivalent of the pension levy which is being imposed on everyone else in the public service? I understand there may be constitutional difficulties with reducing judges' salaries, but I am not sure there would be a difficulty in constitutional terms in requiring judges to contribute towards their pensions.
There is a problem with these questions, Deputy, as they do not relate in any way to the three questions before the Taoiseach.
In the context of saving expenditure, has the Taoiseach considered this? Have any steps been taken to raise this in an appropriate manner?
That is outside the remit of these questions, but if the Taoiseach wants to be helpful he may.
As the Ceann Comhairle says, it is outside the remit of the questions. As the Deputy knows, we need to recognise the constitutional position and not say or do or indicate anything that would in any way interfere with the independence in the role and functions of those important public servants in the Judiciary who serve us well. I do not wish to say anything more about it, but I am trying to be helpful.
Would the Taoiseach acknowledge that the wider public expects everyone in the public service, with no exceptions, to make a contribution to resolving the current economic crisis in which we find ourselves?
The Taoiseach has been helpful on this matter. Deputy Shatter can put down a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or raise the issue on the Adjournment.
Tuigim go mbaineann na figiúirí atá ag an Taoiseach lena Roinn féin, ach tá ceist ghinearálta agam.
Much of the money that is coming back in professional fees will be collected by specific Departments, particularly the Department of Health and Children, which will collect money from pharmacists' and doctors' fees. Will these savings go back to each Department's budget? For example, the Department of Health and Children must save more than €1 billion on the general health budget. Will the savings under discussion go back to this or any other Department, or will they go into a general pool of Government savings?
In the context of overruns and budgetary pressures, the question of reducing costs to the Exchequer is not a matter of diverting funds but of saving them in budgets that are already under stress. The Minister for Health and Children outlined in last night's debate the extent of the overrun and the fact that a certain amount has been catered for in the service plan. The net figure she gave is less than the figure mentioned by the Deputy. It is not a question of saving some money which can then be put towards the health service. What we are doing is saving money that is being spent by the health service in respect of those who have a contractual relationship with the health service for the provision of services. It is a question of reducing output costs rather than providing extra money for subsequent spending in other areas.
Could the Taoiseach clarify that? For example, in the health budget there is an overrun because of money paid to pharmacists under the Hickey judgment and other issues. However, there will be savings of 8% on money paid to pharmacists, so can these two things be balanced against each other?
I do not think they can be balanced against each other. The overall budgetary pressures on health — for example, the reduced contribution from the health levy due to the lower numbers of people in employment — are a countervailing pressure point to the saving obtained due to the 8% reduction in professional fees. If the Deputy understands my point, in the context of the full budget, the achievement of a saving in one area does not allow one to ring-fence that saving and put it towards improvement of services in that general area, because there are budget overruns on the other side which must be catered for.
Can we keep it within the Department?
It will not be going anywhere.
The reduction in consultancy fees was to take effect from last Sunday, 1 March. Where projects have been running for some time, will the reduction take effect in respect of those projects from last Sunday? For example, in early 2008 the Economist Intelligence Unit — a brilliant name — undertook on behalf of Government to carry out an independent benchmarking review to assess the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of key Irish economic regulators. That was the remit. The cost was supposed to be €306,000 and the report was to be published last September. It was then pushed out to November and then to mid-February. It is now almost halfway through March and it still has not been published. When will this report be published, and will the reduction in consultancy fees in this case take effect from last Sunday? In other words, will the work done since last Sunday, whenever the report is published, be subject to a reduction of 8% in consultation fees?
I cannot give the specifics as to when the report, which is still in preparation, will be published. However, the Department of Finance circular, which sets out the rules for the implementation of the 8% reduction, has been issued to all bodies and programmes within the Department Vote, as I said. Our Department reviews contracts in place for professional services to revise the fees down by 8% from 1 March for services to be rendered on or after that date. The answer to the Deputy's question is that it is envisaged the fee will be reduced by 8%——
From that date?
——in respect of work done on and from that date, not beforehand.
Does the Taoiseach have any idea when we are going to see this wonderful document?
No, I do not.
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is proposed to redraft the programme for Government in view of the economic recession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7049/09]
5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if the programme for Government is to be revised in view of the current economic circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8423/09]
6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if it is planned to make changes to the programme for Government having regard to the current economic situation and his announcement of 3 February 2009 regarding reductions in expenditure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9618/09]
7 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Taoiseach if the programme for Government will be revised or modified in view of the economic crisis; the elements that will not be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9988/09]
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
The position is exactly as I outlined to the House on 18 February 2009 in reply to questions on the programme for Government. As its title suggests, the Programme for Government 2007-2012 is a programme of priorities to be delivered over a five-year period. Progress in delivering the programme is kept under review. On 24 September 2008, the Department of the Taoiseach website published statements regarding the progress made by Departments in implementing each of the commitments in the programme for Government.
On questions on this topic in the House on 18 February, I informed Deputy Gilmore, "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". With regard to the specific commitments in the programme for Government, I said that "the priorities are being reassessed by Ministers in the context of the budgets now available to them". We are now in the process of preparing for a supplementary budget, and this work is ongoing.
Bhí seans agam an cheist seo a chur cheana. An bhfoilseoidh an Rialtas clár nua? Is léir nach gcuirfear i bhfeidhm an chláir a tharraingíodh suas i 2007. Cad a bheidh in áit an chláir sin? An gcuirfidh an Rialtas clár leasuithe os comhair an Oireachtais?
The programme for Government includes commitments that are cost neutral. Can the Taoiseach advise the House which of these will proceed? At least let us examine the programme for Government to determine what exactly is being done to deliver on the commitments entered into between the parties comprising this new coalition. Does he not accept that a revised programme for Government is essential? He is coming forward with an additional budget for this year. In the same vein, a programme for Government drafted in the context of the 2007 general election clearly has not got the potential for delivery. It is a requirement that the programme be redrafted and brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas for debate. Will he fulfil that requirement?
As I have stated on previous occasions, the work of the Government is focused on the issues of today in terms of dealing with the supplementary budget and setting out our priorities. I have made it clear that the programme for Government, which was predicated on a growth rate of 4% per annum, clearly cannot be fully implemented during the course of this term. It is obvious we are in a completely different situation from the one on which all parties based their programmes when they went to the people in 2007. Our programme was more conservative than most but the point is the situation has totally changed and every programme for Government contains within it the provision that all commitments are predicated on sustainable public finances. There is no point in suggesting these are free riding and unconditional in all respects or that in the event of 100% of a programme for Government not being implemented, one has failed to implement it. The programme for Government is couched on the basis of maintaining and upholding the public finance position because that is the only way one can have a sustainable position, whatever one is going to do.
That is the clear position of the programme for Government and we are consequently clarifying for the Opposition the areas in which we will proceed. On the basis of annual output statements and in the aftermath of budget debates, Ministers are able to go before committees to set out the issues and areas they intend to progress during a given year. In many cases, we will have to defer measures and will have to retrench in some areas because we are clearly in an unsustainable position. To critique the Government because all commitments in the programme for Government will not now be implemented is a very skewed reading of the programme because the Deputy is deciding to take out of the equation the fact that the public finance position is paramount in respect of all programmes for Government, be they ones I have negotiated in the past or ones I have sought to observe from the Opposition benches. Every programme for Government is based on that.
Tá súil agam go mbeidh seans agam teacht ar ais go dtí an Teachta Ó Caoláin.
Beidh tú ar ais.
Aontaím leis an méid a dúirt an Taoiseach faoi chostas an phlean seo. Tá a fhios ag gach éinne nach féidir é a chur i gcrích go hiomlán muna bhfuil struchtúr eacnamaíochta na tíre láidir go leor. Ba mhaith liom cúpla ceist a chur faoi mholtaí agus polasaithe nach mbaineann costas ar bith leo. Mar shampla, is féidir linn athstruchtúrú a dhéanamh ar an chóras cheadúnais bus gan chostas ar bith a chruthú. Tá sé sin sa phlean, ach níl nuacht ar bith faoi. Molaim gur chóir don Rialtas rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi thruailliú torainn, nó noise pollution, agus faoi chomhlachtaí bainistíochta, nó management companies. Níl costas ar bith ag baint leis na moltaí atá leagtha síos. Táimid ag feitheamh le reifreann ar chearta leanaí. Tá an Teachta Shatter ar an gcoiste atá ag déileáil leis an ábhar sin. An mbeidh an reifreann ar siúl in éineacht le toghchán ar bith? An bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Rialtas moltaí agus cuspóirí a leagadh síos maidir le príosúnaigh? Tá sé sin sa phlean, ach níl scéal ar bith faoi ach oiread. Tá ceithre mholadh luaite agam. Níl costas ar bith ag baint leo. Is féidir leis an Rialtas iad a chur i gcrích gan an plean a athrú, cé nach bhfuil cúrsaí eacnamaíochta na tíre ró-láidir.
The absent Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who rarely comes in here, stated at the weekend that he wants to stay in Government because there is a national development programme to implement. I am not sure whether that is the reason he wants to stay in Government given that one would probably need a blow torch to remove Green Party Deputies from the seats to which they are welded in absentia. The Taoiseach made the realistic point that the economy is not going in the direction we would prefer and therefore the national development programme cannot be implemented as intended.
In February, I raised the question of restructuring the national development programme and made a number of proposals which are labour intensive but would not entail major costs. These proposals would employ Irish contractors and labourers, thereby giving people respect and opportunities to pay their taxes while at the same time constructing school buildings, primary health care centres and other facilities. The Taoiseach responded by saying the Government was working on the matter and that the broad estimate of the total number employed through the capital investment programme is 100,000 people. Has more work been done on the matter and will we see an analysis of how the national development programme can be rewritten to front load it with labour intensive projects that would get people back to work? In this day and age, people who are healthy, well educated and able to work should not be walking around or doing nothing. The Government should employ itself on this useful exercise.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, tá reachtaíocht á ullmhú ag na hAirí éagsúla maidir leis an chóras cheadúnais bus agus ná hábhair chomhshaoil eile a luaigh an Teachta. B'fhéidir go mbeadh an Teachta níos fearr as ceisteanna díreacha maidir leis an dul chun cinn atá á dhéanamh leis na polasaithe éagula a chur faoi bhráid na hAirí atá freagrach astu. B'fhéidir go gheobhadh sé freagraí níos cruinne.
Is tusa an boss. Ní thugann siad freagra ar bith dom.
Tugann siad, ach ní bhíonn an Teachta ag éisteacht.
Ní bhfaigheann na hAirí scéal ar bith óna Ranna féin. Ní bhíonn ann ach focail.
Bíonn an Teachta ag caint nuair atá siad ag freagairt.
Is é sin an fáth gur chuir mé ceist ar an Taoiseach.
Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall.
Deireann siad gur cheart dom na nithe seo a ardú leis an Taoiseach.
As the Deputy noted, clearly areas such as legislative change or issues which do not entail large costs can and should be progressed. I agree with that.
Two issues arise in regard to the question of prioritising capital investment programmes. We must concentrate on areas which give rise to social needs or economic returns. Our scarce resources must be concentrated on work that is strategically important in terms of enhancing the competitiveness of the economy so that we are in a position to take advantage of the upturn whenever it comes. As an export oriented and open country, we are dependent on a world economic recovery. We derive our wealth from what we sell abroad to a far greater extent than from what we produce and consume domestically due to the position of our economy, what we produce and where we spend and sell our products and services. It is therefore important that we use the recessionary period, during which there are scarcer resources, in a way that is focused on those priorities. That is not to say we are not mindful of providing labour intensive projects as well but the balance must be struck. We cannot just put in place projects which, when they are added up, do not provide the same economic rate of return as the more strategic work in transport, infrastructure or other necessary areas. Finalising our national motorway programme needs to be done and it would not make sense to divert money from that towards other areas that might be more labour intensive but would put at risk the major investment already made in the programme. We are in a position to complete it now at a time when outputs are far greater for the spend, given the more competitive tendering now available. There is no disagreement about finding that balance and there is a continuing high level of investment in overall terms of 5.3% this year in terms of capital spend.
In terms of the economic crisis and our financial position, we must be careful and see how we can maintain the capital programme and focus it on those areas that are strategically important. We must take advice from various State agencies that will ensure we support enterprise, improve competitiveness and continue to invest for the future while contending with the present difficulties.
Is léir ón méid atá ráite ag an Taoiseach nach bhfuil an clár Rialtais beo faoi láthair agus nach féidir linn na bearta a bhí ann a chreidiúint anois. Ardaítear dhá fhadhb dá bharr sin. Tá an clár Rialtais tábhachtach mar is é sin an conradh idir na páirithe sa Rialtas. Níl a fhios againn anois cad é go díreach an conradh idir na páirithe sin ós rud é nach féidir iontaoibh a bheith againn as an chlár Rialtais. Ní féidir linn bheith ag súil le freagracht ón Rialtas nuair nach bhfuil clár Rialtais ann mar bhunús don fhreagracht sin.
Bhí an clár Rialtais bunaithe ar mhéadú 4.5% sa gheilleagar le linn saol an Rialtais ach is léir nach mbeidh an ráta sin ann. Cén figiúr a bhfuil an Rialtas ag obair air faoi láthair? Is dócha gur figiúr laghdaithe atá i gceist anois.
Baineann beart amháin sa chlár Rialtais le cúrsaí cánach. Mar a deir sé sa chlár: "Our first priority remains low and middle income earners — therefore our first task will be to use tax credits and bands to keep low income earners out of the standard rate band and average earners out of the higher band." An bhfuil sin mar pholasaí don Rialtas fós agus an mbeidh an polasaí sin mar bhunús don cháinfhaisnéis nua?
Tá a fhios ag an Teachta go bhfuil an ghéarchéim eacnamaíochta atá againn faoi láthair chomh tromchúiseach sin nach mbeimid in ann an córas cánach a bhí againn go dtí seo a fheabhsú mar a bhí muid in ann staid an ghnáthphobail a fheabhsú gach bliain le deich mbliana anuas. Ní féidir linn sin a dhéanamh as seo amach. Beidh athruithe ag teacht ó thaobh an córas cánach de. Níl cinneadh déanta ag an Rialtas go dtí seo, tá múid ag déanamh scrúdú ar na roghanna atá againn agus beidh ar gach éinne fanacht go dtí an buiséad nua go bhfeicfimid na cinntí atá déanta againn. Tá an eacnamaíocht go ginearálta lag i mbliana, beidh laghdú 6.5% sa gheilleagar, nó níos mó b'fhéidir. Is géarchéim í seo nach bhfaca muid riamh sa tír seo.
The programme for Government was laid down on the basis of growth of 4.5%, which provided greater resources and, therefore, an ability to indicate further reforms and improvements in the tax area in addition to those already brought forward by successive Fianna Fáil-led Administrations since 1997. The new situation means we must look in the short and medium-term at sustainable systems of taxation for the country in the present circumstances that will be helpful for the investment climate, difficult as it may be, and that will allow us to compete for foreign direct investment while assisting indigenous industry.
The whole thrust of policy in the past was to minimise to the greatest extent possible tax on income, labour and business so we could ensure the greatest number of people possible could obtain work in our country. A great many did and got jobs commensurate with their talents and abilities. The situation has changed internationally and domestically and we must now see a way forward that broadens the tax base and ensures we raise sufficient funds to meet the requirements of basic public services.
The gap that has arisen, despite our low debt, is significant and must be closed. We have said many times that we tried to devise a taxation system based on the ability to pay, consistent with the promotion of enterprise, the maintenance of the maximum number of jobs and as fair a system as possible. That always has been our objective and the record of successive Fianna Fáil-led Governments has been exemplary in that respect. We must now look to see how we can reconfigure this in a way that will maintain jobs in the future.
This must be done against the background of a fragile economy and the swift change in our fortunes makes it all the more difficult. We cannot avoid the necessary adjustments if we are to fulfil our responsibilities, difficult as they may be for those privileged to be in Government at the moment.
I do not agree the programme for Government is irrelevant. The programme was based on different assumptions but through annual departmental statements and outputs, and debates on the budget, education or any other sector of the economy, Ministers can outline their priorities. Those priorities are the focus of debate because they must be addressed in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Government's work is focused on getting this necessary work done. We have seen much work done in the first three months of the year in terms of the financial crisis and the legislative response to it and the need to provide for capitalisation. There has been much debate in the House on the emergency legislation that has been brought forward.
We will do whatever is required to meet the top priorities of the day. In this case it is our economic well-being. Those are the issues that must take precedence over all else. The Deputy is suggesting that the commitments in the programme for Government are meaningless, but they were conditional. I reiterate that all programme commitments of successive Governments were conditional. Any programme for Government worth the name has a budgetary parameter, without which it would be rendered meaningless.
The programme for Government contained a commitment to publish a national carers' strategy by the end of 2007. Does the Taoiseach accept that the decision last week not to publish such a strategy has had a serious effect on the 160,000 family carers throughout the State who are providing an essential support service to people who in other circumstances would cost the Exchequer untold millions of euro? Will the Taoiseach heed the call of carers' representative groups to develop and publish a national carers' strategy in line with the commitment in the programme for Government? In recognition of the current economic difficulties, will he also note that carer groups are asking the Government to deliver on the non-pay elements? The Taoiseach should accept that there is an onus of responsibility on the Government in this respect.
At the outset, the Government made a commitment to social partners and carer representative groups that a national carers' strategy would not just be a paper exercise. The current economic situation has made it impossible to consider introducing any developments in services for carers at this time, beyond what we have been able to provide in recent years. There have been significant improvements in recent years. In that context, rather than publishing a document which does not include any significant plans for the future, it was considered that the best course of action would be not to publish a strategy at this time and to be open and honest with people who work in this area. I have a lot of admiration and respect for them. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs arranged meetings with representatives of carers groups in advance for that purpose.
Over the past ten years, support for carers has greatly increased. This year, the Department of Social and Family Affairs is providing some €650 million in payments to support carers. Over 45,000 people will receive a carer's allowance payment. That figure includes some 16,000 people who receive the half-rate carer's allowance in addition to another social welfare payment, which is a change I introduced as Minister for Finance. It was agreed with the late Séamus Brennan who was Minister for Social and Family Affairs at the time.
Over 51,400 carers received the annual respite grant of €17,000. The figure of 161,000 carers, which is frequently quoted — it was mentioned by Deputy Ó Caoláin — is from census returns and includes anyone providing a minimum of one hour's care per week. The numbers in receipt of carer's allowance or benefit and the respite care grant represent the vast majority of people providing full-time care.
The Department of Health and Children and the Health Service Executive, together with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, are committed to working with carers representative groups in the valuable work they do to support carers. The submissions received as part of the consultation process and the work carried out by the interdepartmental working group will inform our thinking in the future. In current circumstances, however, it is important to focus on maintaining the level of services we have been able to provide up to now in better times. These are far more difficult times.
