Eamon Gilmore
Question:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the changes to be made to his Department’s Estimate for 2009 arising from Budget decisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15143/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the revisions to his Department’s Estimate for 2009 arising from the 7 April 2009 budget decisions on public spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17398/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
As a result of the supplementary budget on 7 April, my Department's 2009 Estimate has been reduced by €3.583 million over the Estimate published last October. The reductions have been identified across several of the Department's administrative and programme subheads. My Department's Revised Estimate for 2009 is €32.686 million which is a reduction of 22% on the 2008 further Revised Estimate.
Why is there an increase of 10% in the allocation for consultancy services under subhead A7 given that the Minister for Finance announced last July that all expenditure by Departments and agencies on consultancies, advertising and PR was to be reduced significantly for the remainder of this year and by at least 50% in 2009? There are significant increases in the allocations for office machinery and office premises expenses. In respect of what are these increases?
In his announcement on 3 February, the Minister for Finance said all Departments would be required to effect general administrative reductions in their budgets. Where have these occurred in the Taoiseach's Department and to what do they amount? Has there been any reduction in the staffing level in either the constituency or private office of the Taoiseach or the Ministers of State attached to his Department?
The most significant expenditure is on the Moriarty tribunal. The allocation has increased from €4 million to €7.5 million. Is the Taoiseach satisfied this will be sufficient to meet the tribunal's needs given that it appears to be about to embark on another significant round of public hearings? Has there been any communication between the tribunal and the Taoiseach on the likely extent of the resumed hearings? Is there a likely date for the conclusion and publication of the final report? When the Taoiseach last spoke about this on 3 March, he said the total cost up to 31 January 2009 was €34.91 million and that the figure for 2008 was €4 million. The recently published report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states that if one included third-party costs, which are uncertain and to which there is a high degree of contingency attached, the figure could be €100 million. Has there been any recalculation of the total likely cost to the Department?
Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to observe or read a number of newspaper reports published about two weeks ago, particularly in Sunday newspapers, on an important document in the possession of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in respect of which it held legal privilege for almost ten years? It was suggested that because the draft report of the tribunal may have contained some critique of officials in that Department, the document was to be released to the tribunal, granted that it had not already been laid before it confidentially and was not mentioned in public hearings.
Most people in the country are upset by many things that have gone badly in recent years but are further upset by the thought that a document that may have clarified serious matters for the tribunal was just sat on for ten years and is now to be the subject of extensive public hearings. What is the Taoiseach's opinion on this? What is the likely cost of the extra hearings? The moneys spent on the tribunal tend to dwarf all the other expenditures under the heading pertaining to the Department of the Taoiseach.
With regard to the supplementary questions arising from the question on the Estimates, it is important to point out that there has been a reduction of 22%. It is not true to say there has been an increase in PR or consultancy spending. That is not correct. In fact, consultancy provision in the Department's Vote in 2008, under subhead A7, was €275,000, and this has been reduced to €118,000 as a result of the Government's decision to cut consultancy costs by 50%. Along with further budget day cuts, this results in a total reduction of 57% over the 2008 provision. Every effort was made by the Department to minimise its budget in that area. The consultancy provision in my Department's Vote, as I said, is quite small.
With regard to the other savings, reductions of €3.583 million were obtained. A total of €2.013 million in reductions will be made across the programme subheads in the Vote, while reductions of €170,000 will be made across administrative subheads. For example, the National Forum on Europe will be closed, with a reduction of €1.853 million. Other reductions across programme subheads include €110,000 for the National Economic and Social Development Office, €10,000 for commemoration initiatives, and €24,000 for the Ireland Newfoundland partnership. These are in addition to earlier reductions across all subheads in last October's budget, resulting in reduced allocations in these subheads of at least 15% in each programme subhead and of 36% across the total programme provision in the Vote. As a result of the Government decision of 8 July last regarding measures for expenditure control, substantial savings were achieved across the programme subheads through a combination of administrative efficiencies. These savings will continue to be realised during the course of this year.
A question was raised regarding the 10% reduction in private office costs. Since taking office I have asked that all areas of expenditure in my private offices and those of the Ministers of State in my Department be reviewed to identify where savings could be achieved. Staffing arrangements in my office have been reorganised, resulting in the redeployment of two members of staff, and I have asked that a reduction in overtime costs be achieved in the future. I have also instructed staff to obtain better value in foreign travel, official entertainment and the range of administrative costs associated with the running of these offices through reviews of processes and procurement practices in order to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness.
Regarding speculation about a document held by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the matter is best dealt with by the Minister concerned. It is not intended to change the allocation that has been made available for the Moriarty tribunal this year.
In view of the general unease people are feeling about how the Government is running — or not running — the affairs of the country and the cost the tribunal has thus far incurred without ever producing an interim report, the possibility of further extended hearings in order to call back a collection of witnesses, particularly civil servants, is scary. Given the importance of the Moriarty tribunal in the affairs of the nation, and the fact that the budget heading is specifically the responsibility of the Taoiseach in his capacity as head of his Department, he needs to comment on the increase in the Estimate from €4 million to €7.5 million, which is an increase of 87%. He must be aware of the issue. The suggestion that only the line Minister in the relevant Department would be aware of this is surprising, because I would have thought that, with regard to legal privilege, the Attorney General was also involved in advising on this document.
The Deputy must ask a question as it is Question Time. Can the Taoiseach give an idea of the revised cost of the Moriarty tribunal over and above the previous estimate of €100 million? How long will the additional hearings take? Does the Taoiseach have a date for the production of any kind of report by the tribunal, either interim or final?
Those are not matters covered by the general question on Estimates here.
No, they are not.
The only point I would make is that I have answered a question on the tribunal and issues arising in recent weeks so I refer the Deputy to that detailed response to the questions asked then.
As regards the report of the Moriarty tribunal, it is a matter for the chairman of the tribunal to decide how he wishes to proceed. He has used a different method from other tribunals in trying to avoid greater costs to the taxpayer in terms of how he has conducted that detailed, complicated inquiry. I refer again to previous answers to specific questions on the matter. I make the point that there is no change in the Estimate provision for this year.
The Exchequer figures published yesterday call to mind the words of the Minister for Finance on Monday, when he said the science of economic forecasting at present is imprecise, a bit like forecasting the weather, where there is such a variety of forecasts that the reality is we share a common analysis. If that is the case, does the Taoiseach believe the Estimates published in respect of his Department will stand up to analysis?
Has the Taoiseach established the criteria that will apply for the replacement of staff who might retire or move on? Is there any indication of the numbers within the Department who might retire this year? Will they be replaced? Is there any assurance that public servants who take early retirement will not have their lump sums taxed? If this matter is not conclusively addressed, it will quickly cause a brain drain and a loss of experience from all Departments. It must be dealt with in a reassuring manner by the Taoiseach.
I answered the question about vacancies last week. I referred the Deputy to the budget statement of the Minister for Finance, who outlined that it was not the intention at that time to tax those gratuities and he would refer back to the matter in December.
On the question of the Estimates, they came in as scheduled last year and will come in this year. It is a matter of controlling expenditure. This is the money that is available and that has been passed by the Houses for these purposes and it would take a supplementary budget to change that. I do not expect there will be a supplementary budget for the Department.
What process is used within the Department to determine savings or cuts when such decisions are being considered? We have seen a series of cuts across Departments and the public service, many of them unacceptable, certainly to Opposition voices and to many Government backbenchers. Some of these decisions have had a negative effect on the public's opinion of politics as a whole, such as the HPV vaccine programme and the cuts in special needs education. What process is used to make determinations? Does the Secretary General of the Department highlight possible cuts and does the Taoiseach, as head of the Department, make the final determination? Is the practice the same in other Departments or is the overall budget cut and then it is left to the individual Minister to determine how the Department's spending will fit into the overall sum allocated? Can the Taoiseach give us a sense of how this process works? Is the Cabinet involved in this respect? Is there detail on these proposals? Does the matter go to the Cabinet for a final decision to be taken on it? Is it a collective decision of the Cabinet or is it left to the Taoiseach's Department and other Departments to make these at times alarming decisions?
I would like to make it clear to the Deputy that one has two options when in government. One tries to bring about a situation where one's public finance position is sustainable or one decides that it is unsustainable, does not make any decisions and continues to borrow money at a rate that is not affordable over the period of time. That is the position.
One has a budget. Limited resources are available to the State and there are priorities that have to be set out. The Government has set out its budgetary position in great detail and it stands over those decisions. Many decisions have to be taken which one would rather one would not have to consider but they have to be considered on the basis of the financial resources available. That is the duty of Government. The luxury of Opposition is to decry all decisions and suggest a painless alternative way forward where money can be obtained like manna from heaven or that one can continue with the provision of service levels that are simply not affordable in terms of the public coffers. Alternatively, the Opposition can decide there are specific alternatives and put them before us.
On the methodology of individual decisions that have to be taken, a bilateral Estimates process takes place between the Minister for Finance and individual Departments. There are also Cabinet meetings, which take broader policy decisions. Where further decisions are required in the aftermath of the bilateral Estimates process, the Government has to take those decisions.
I wish to ask a brief supplementary. The picture the Taoiseach has painted is not clear. The reason I ask this question is that I have never been in government and I am anxious and curious to know how these decisions are arrived at. I base my line of questioning on what was abhorrent to Opposition voices in the House, that members of the Government and members of the Cabinet were apparently unaware of the detail of the decisions announced on 7 April or 14 October last, or were they just being smart-assed about it and pretending that they had not been consulted? I ask the question again — are the decisions on the cuts in regard to specific Departments taken within the Department or are they decisions of the collective Cabinet?
The Taoiseach mentioned that the Cabinet is involved in broader policy decisions. In respect of the major decisions that have impacted so heavily and negatively not only in terms of public attitude towards the Government but — I believe I am fair in reflecting this — also against politics in general, which is clearly the position, are those decisions taken within Departments or is each Minister responsible for the cuts under his or her portfolio of responsibility? How are those decisions determined? Are the Secretaries General involved in such proposals? Who comes up with the ideas and the instances I cited in my opening question in regard to the cancellation of the HPV vaccine? Who dreamed up that proposal? In regard to the decision on special needs education where some 500 children will be deprived of the essential supports they need in the classroom, who dreamed up that proposal? I do not expect that the respective Ministers were the initial volunteers of these proposals but I could be surprised. The Taoiseach might have another go at responding to this question. I would be pleased to hear any further detail he would care to share.
I advise the Deputy I do not think the word "smart-assed" appears in the thesaurus.
As I was explaining to the Deputy, at the beginning of every budgetary process a bilateral meeting takes place between individual Ministers and the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance will have obtained from Government broad agreement on the parameters of the budgetary strategy, based on the macro-economic forecasts and whatever other issues he can bring to the table as to what needs to be done. Once this is achieved, the parameters are set and separate bilateral meetings take place between the Minister for Finance and individual Ministers. In respect of every departmental Estimate there are officials in the Department of Finance who work on those issues all the time and they are the contact for officials from, for example, the Department of Education and Science, on issues of general administration. They discuss the questions and a political discussion takes place between Ministers and officials on both sides. In so far as agreement can be reached on the proposed Estimate, then agreement is reached. Subsequently all these Estimates, once agreed, are put to Cabinet where they are agreed, adopted and published. If there are further political decisions that need to be made to take account of the broad economic situation, or of any proposals from the Minister for Finance for budgetary measures or initiatives, these are also decided at Cabinet. Taxation matters are the preserve of the Minister for Finance and this is how the budget works.
The Deputy suggests there is a lack of commitment on the part of Government, for example, with regard to special needs education. This Government has seen greater improvements in special needs education and quite rightly so because of the increased resources we were able to provide due to the success of our economic policies. Adjustments now have to be made but there are thousands of special needs assistants in situ today who were not there before we came into office and there are thousands of extra teachers, thousands of new classrooms, thousands and millions of euro worth of new equipment ——
Thousands of unemployed.
——and the numbers of people who are now being provided for in mainstream education show that there has been a revolution in the provision of education — and quite rightly so — for those with disabilities and problems. This is not to suggest that every problem has been solved but I do not accept the contention that this Government has not shown a very strong commitment in this area. It has displayed a very strong commitment and one that is far stronger than the commitment shown by any previous Governments, precisely because more resources have been available. The record will show this commitment and it will also show there are ongoing problems of administration which must be dealt with. However, resources are finite and in the areas of health and education and social welfare we have sought to minimise the imposition of hardships but clearly the provision of service levels at existing levels or indeed improving them depends on obtaining certain flexibilities and certain new arrangements in terms of staffing and methods of operating and managing services. This will be a continuing challenge for any Administration for the foreseeable future, given that we will need to get more for less because it is clear there will be fewer resources than was the case in the past.
Targeting vulnerable children is not the answer.
We certainly do not do that.
With regard to the proposed retirement scheme for public servants, is there any kind of Cabinet sub-committee or monitoring process to discover the number of public servants likely to retire? Has the Taoiseach any figures for his own Department as to the number of civil servants wishing to retire early under the scheme and civil servants who have sought to take leave under the scheme announced in the budget? Who will make the decision in the Taoiseach's Department and in other Departments as to whose retirement application will be accepted and whose will be rejected, perhaps on the grounds that the person is indispensable? Is there any kind of committee at Cabinet level to oversee this scheme because otherwise——
This sounds like a different question.
——it is possible that some of the best people will go? I ask in particular about the Taoiseach's Department. Is he concerned that people whom he did not envisage leaving, may leave and others whom he thought might take the offer are not doing so? Is he concerned at the widespread reports that senior members of the Garda Síochána are actively considering early retirement because of the suggested tax on the lump sum?
The Deputy is beginning to stray into different territory.
Questions about specific areas of specific Departments should be addressed to specific Ministers. At the end of April this year the number of whole-time equivalent staff serving in my Department was 2,009. We will endeavour to redeploy staff according to key business needs and activity levels; to restructure work loads as appropriate; and achieve greater productivity through exploiting new technologies and availing of shared service arrangements. In 2008 staff savings were achieved in this manner by moving the operation of my Department's financial management system and associated transaction processing to the financial shared service centre of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in Killarney.
Further to the moratorium on recruitment and promotion, no vacancy arising in my Department will be filled except in exceptional circumstances with the express sanction of the Department of Finance as provided for in the Department of Finance circular. This will necessitate reviews of how staff are deployed in the Department to ensure key areas of Department activity are adequately staffed. The Department will endeavour to redeploy staff according to key business needs and levels of activity, restructure workloads as appropriate and achieve greater productivity through exploiting new technologies and availing of shared service arrangements. The Department will adhere to the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the public service. No vacancies in my Department will be filled, however they arise, whether by recruitment, promotion or payment of an allowance for the performance of duties at a higher grade in accordance with the circular issued by the Department of Finance on 27 March.
It is difficult to predict the numbers affected in terms of how many vacancies will not be filled arising from any further reduction in the Estimate provision for salaries because it depends on the timing and grade of any vacancies that may arise due to staff leaving the Department, whether as a result of retirement or any other reason.
Ministerial Responsibilities.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the changes he plans to make to the roles and responsibilities of Ministers of State attached to his Department, arising from the recent Government decision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15144/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15561/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the changes to the roles of Ministers of State appointed by him. [16425/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
On 22 April 2009 the Government appointed Deputy Pat Carey as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Defence and Deputy Dick Roche as Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs.
As Chief Whip, Deputy Pat Carey is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and for the Government's programme for Dáil reform. He also oversees the preparation of the Government's legislative programme. I have also assigned responsibility for the active citizenship initiative in my Department to Deputy Pat Carey. The role of the Minister will be to drive the initiative forward, oversee the implementation of its recommendations and, critically, to promote the concept of active citizenship in all spheres of Irish life. The Minister of State will be supported in this work by a steering group chaired by Ms Mary Davis. My statutory functions relating to the Central Statistics Office have been delegated to the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Carey.
In my Department, the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review, and works to ensure coherence on, the full range of issues on the EU's agenda. The committee has a particular focus on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, also represents the Government at a wide range of EU and international meetings. He plays a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's bilateral relations with EU member states. He also plays a key role in communicating the importance of the European Union to Ireland, thus fostering enhanced public understanding of EU issues. As always, questions on the functions of particular Ministers of State in other Departments should be tabled to the relevant Ministers.
Were all the Ministers of State appointed given delegated functions by the Ministers in charge of their Departments, specifically in the Taoiseach's Department? Do both Ministers of State have delegated functions? I assume the Chief Whip does, as very obvious duties are assigned. In many other cases one gets the impression that Ministers of State are a bit aimless unless they have a nice senior Minister who allows them to do something. Otherwise they are condemned to the graveyard shift in the Dáil where they handle Adjournment debate matters when they come in and read out a script, which, normally, only a couple of people have the pleasure of hearing. It is the equivalent, in television terms, of being on "Oireachtas Report", if one were involved in its production. As a Minister of State, one ends up reading prepared scripts that one has not even seen before entering the Chamber. Are there delegated functions for all the Ministers of State recently appointed by the Taoiseach?
Is the Taoiseach concerned that, in the way the appointments of the new line up of Ministers of State was handled, the fallout was very destructive of the image of smart——
This has nothing to do with the question, as the Deputy knows.
——Government in Ireland?
Never mind that now.
The former Minister of State, Deputy John McGuinness, pointed to an appalling situation——
The question concerns the Ministers of State. The Deputy cannot ask about that.
——where the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government——
You cannot ask questions that are irrelevant, Deputy Burton. You know that as well as I do.
——and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, appeared to be unfit for purpose. Given that Deputy McGuinness has been on the Committee for Public Accounts for a long time and is somebody who knows a fair bit about the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on inefficiencies in the public service, is the Taoiseach concerned that what he had to say simply confirmed fears that many people have that the Government and specific Ministers——
The Deputy is now out of order. Her question is out of order.
——are not fully in charge of their Departments in terms of meeting the challenges?
I ask, specifically, why the Chief Whip is also a Minister of State in the Department of Defence. We have a relatively small Army. Is it necessary to have a Minister of State in that Department, in addition to its redoubtable Minister for Defence? The reason has never been clear to me. Is it merely tradition?
I hope the very low opinion Deputy Burton has of Ministers of State does not reflect her own experience when she was one. I would hate to think——
I always made sure to get delegation functions in writing.
Let the Taoiseach finish.
I would hate to think she had such a bad experience and that she was relegated merely to speaking at germane debates and felt excluded from the general workings of Government. It would be a great pity if that were the case. I hope it is not a reflection on her personal experience.
In the general workload of Government, the work of Ministers of State is substantive, namely, to be supportive of Ministers and work with them. There is no doubt that in the interaction of civil society with Departments and in the need to try to represent Departments at various meetings regarding policy formulation, in communicating strategy and listening to concerns at the most basic democratic level, all the Ministers of State are extremely busy people. It does no service to the profession to suggest that in some way their job is a sinecure with no substance at all.
With regard to the number of Ministers of State we now have I believe there is broad agreement that this number is appropriate in the present circumstances. That was the Deputy's party's position so I presume she was not putting forward the idea there should be 15 Ministers of State who had nothing to do. That sort of gratuitous comment is unfortunate. It does not reflect very well on the profession nor is there any substance to the allegation. It is a sarcastic cynical view of what Ministers of State do.
The Ministers of State have been appointed and are settling into their Departments again. In due course the statutory delegated functions of Ministers of State will be brought to Cabinet in coming weeks for final approval.
I agree with Deputy Burton that it is necessary that Ministers of State be given designated functions. There is a need for a certain number of Ministers of State. I would argue that the necessary requirement could be dealt with by appointing 12. The Taoiseach made the reduction to 15.
Ministers of State are appointed by the Government and that is governed by legislation. Deputy Shatter produced a simple Bill by which, if the Government had adopted it, one might have enshrined in law the reduced number of 15, or, in my preference, to 12. Does the Taoiseach intend to give legislative effect to the decision to reduce the number of Ministers of State?
In his previous answer, the Taoiseach rightly referred to the necessity to make priorities where finite resources exist. One of the problems with Ministers of State is the number of public servants employed in their private and constituency offices. This appears to vary from office to office. Everybody understands that a Minister of State needs some assistance to do his or her political work. Has the Taoiseach set a limit on the number of public servants, paid for by the taxpayer, allowed to work in constituency and private offices? Is the figure two or three or am I to understand that individual Ministers of State have different numbers, because that seems to be a sore point with the public? While I fully respect that the Taoiseach is entitled to be able to service the needs, politically, of Ministers of State, when he speaks of finite resources I believe he should put a limit on this and let everybody know whether, for example, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, has two people working for him in his constituency office. In the event, let us not hear that the next Minister of State has six people working for him or her paid for at the taxpayer's expense. Has the Taoiseach imposed a limit of two per Minister of State, and does the same apply to their private offices?
I believe the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, deals with the question of integration, having replaced Deputy Conor Lenihan in that regard. It does not appear, however, that there is to be any Government policy on integration and Deputy Curran has said he will focus on the drugs question, which obviously is important. Equally, the sensitive question of integration is important. In appointing the Minister of State with responsibility for integration, will the Taoiseach comment on his responsibility to continue to build and develop a fair policy of integration both for the Irish and immigrants. He shall get some assistance in that regard from the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who is handing it down now to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The whole idea of Question Time is to get accurate information. There is no better man to give accurate information on integration policy than the former Minister of State who has held that responsibility for a couple of years.
Out of the 15 Ministers of State appointed, six have a primary responsibility in respect of a substantial area of the work of key Departments, and will have significant policy and management responsibilities in that regard. Seven have responsibilities in respect of key cross-cutting issues, which require close co-ordination and, where appropriate, integration of policy and programmes across a number of Departments. Those functions can and will be supported by appropriate interdepartmental structures at official level to provide a streamlined and coherent delivery of the Government's policy in these areas. Finally, two Ministers of State, while having significant lead responsibilities in their own right, will also assist Ministers in the large and complex Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Education and Science.
As the Deputy knows, I have ensured that Ministers of State will carry out their responsibilities with a reduced support team. We have already taken steps to reduce by more than 10% the costs of running the offices of Ministers and Ministers of State. Each has his or her portfolio and represents a significant and clear management brief. Each represents a continuing and essential function of Government, which requires political attention. Each Minister of State has a significant dimension of Oireachtas engagement, providing support for Ministers in busy Departments in carrying out full departmental responsibilities in addition to any delegated duties he or she will have, and an increased number of portfolios. The Minister of State's office acts as a key point of co-ordination in respect of key policy objectives involving more than one Department.
These are the issues that arise as regards Ministers of State and we should get away from the idea that there is little or no work to be done. A great deal has to be done, and in my experience I believe each and every one of them is committed to doing the very best job he or she can do.
Will the Taoiseach clarify which Minister or Minister of State is responsible for drugs policy and the implementation of the national drugs strategy? In his reshuffle of Ministers of State at the end of April, did the Taoiseach downgrade the focused ministerial drugs post from Minister of State with responsibility for the national drugs strategy to Minister of State with special responsibility for integration and community, with no reference to drugs in the title? The dilution of the post happened weeks prior to the demise of the national drugs strategy team, NDST, and the expiration of its staff contracts, which had been already decreed by Government.
Does the Taoiseach recall that the justification for the dissolution of the NDST was that a super-junior Minister with sole responsibility for drugs would be appointed? Instead, the post regressed to its pre-2007 unfocused status.
Alarming cases are daily described in the media of whole communities suffering at the hand of people in the, so called, drugs business. Dolphin's Barn is a very recent case in point. Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that against that backdrop, this decision is a worrying indicator of the Government's winding down of its previously stated commitment to press ahead with the implementation of the national drugs strategy and to combat head-on those responsible for the introduction and distribution of drugs throughout the country?
I do not agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin. There is no question of downgrading the importance of dealing with the drugs issue. The Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Curran, continues to have that responsibility and has shown a strong commitment to the area and knowledge of it. He is trying to ensure that money gets to those who require services and he does so in a far tighter budgetary situation than in the past.
I do not agree with the Deputy's contention that the reorganisation of the responsibilities of Ministers of State was done with the intention of relegating the importance of the issue. The Deputy who had this responsibility before the changes retains it because he has my full confidence with regard to it. An interaction with him at Question Time and on other occasions will allow Deputy Ó Caoláin to dialogue with him on policy objectives and how he intends to implement them.