Vol. 708 No. 1
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his views on the report of the task force on innovation; if it is intended to implement the recommendations contained in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12605/10]
2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the task force on innovation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13728/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I appointed the innovation task force on 29 June 2009 to advise the Government on its strategy for positioning Ireland as an international innovation development hub and to assist in making the smart economy a reality. I very much welcome the report, which was launched on 11 March last and provides a roadmap for one of the five action areas in the smart economy framework and complements the progress which has already been made on other aspects of the strategy. Specifically, it endorses the Government's vision for Ireland as a global innovation hub and suggests we have the potential to achieve this goal.
The report contains many new ideas, as well as calling for a reinforcement and better alignment of existing efforts and programmes. It has made a wide range of recommendations, including in the areas of investment in research and development, the higher education sector, access to intellectual property, public procurement, tax and other incentives, convergence and other opportunities for transforming existing companies, infrastructure and marketing. In particular, it suggests we need to re-focus and re-invigorate all parts of the "innovation ecosystem" and stresses that the focus of all efforts must be the entrepreneur and enterprise if we are to deliver the step-change in job creation we need. It also poses a challenge to industry to seize the opportunities arising.
The detailed recommendations of the task force will, as the report itself recognises, require detailed consideration in the context of budgetary policy. I have signalled the Government's commitment to the agenda through the restructuring of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. The transfer of responsibility for the programme of research in third level institutions to that Department is in line with a more strategic approach to public investment in research and development recommended by the task force.
It was also agreed, as one of the recommendations of the task force, to have an ongoing committee, chaired by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, to consider and oversee the implementation of the report. The membership of that committee is being finalised and will be announced shortly. In the meantime, progress is already underway in a number of Departments to prioritise implementation of the recommendations of the task force which can be progressed in the short term.
This is the report which arose from the initiative the Government took in December 2008. I want to ask the Taoiseach about the implementation of some of the recommendations. First, the report stated that at least 117,000 jobs could be created, which is very welcome. Can we have some indication as to when we are likely to see the first of those jobs appearing? Second, there was a recommendation to reduce the effective corporation tax rate on innovative activities to 5%. Has the Government accepted that recommendation and when is it intended to be followed through? Third, there was a recommendation that a committee would be appointed, reporting directly to the Taoiseach, to ensure the recommendations are implemented in a dynamic fashion. Do I understand from the Taoiseach that the committee he says will be chaired by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation is that committee, and that it has not yet been appointed? Fourth, there was a recommendation that there would be a scheme to give public servants relevant work experience in high growth business in order to give them the skills necessary to build up a smart economy. What has been done about that recommendation?
The task force report made certain proposals and it has outlined what it believes could be the potential of the report in terms of job creation over the longer term. It is not suggesting that this would be done overnight but it talks about change. There will be issues for IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland to work through. There will also be issues for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to work through in terms of trying to improve the visa and residency situations.
As the Deputy knows, fiscal matters must be considered in the context of the budgets of the future and also, of course, the various committees which consider taxation proposals pre-budget. The committee to which I referred, which is one of the recommendations and is to be chaired by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, is being finalised at present and will be announced shortly.
On those recommendations, I understand the committee has not been set up yet, the fiscal issues such as the reduction in corporation tax for innovative activities have not yet been considered, we are not sure when the first jobs will appear and there was no answer regarding the public servants getting work experience in high growth business.
Turning to some of the other recommendations, the report recommended that the country should re-brand itself as an innovation hub and that a €500 million innovation fund would be established. What has been done about these matters? There was also a recommendation that Ireland should modernise its bankruptcy laws. Has any progress been made on that matter and which Department will bring in the legislation to modernise the bankruptcy laws?
The whole purpose of the group which will be working on this is to monitor the implementation of these recommendations with the various Departments and agencies, and that this is in the process of being set up. The net job creation in high-tech firms of the order of 117,000 jobs to which the report refers is to happen between now and 2020. The report believes the implementation of the recommendations, supported by a favourable economic context, has the potential to contribute that sort of number of jobs, and this excludes the creation of additional jobs through the multiplier effect. It is not a forecast or a prediction but it is an indication of what the report believes is possible and the potential of what we are talking about in terms of seeking to implement the report.
With regard to the venture capital fund, innovation fund and so on, I have stated to the House on previous occasions that work is ongoing by the National Treasury Management Agency on that issue. While there has not been a great background on which to work on the setting up of new venture capital funds given the present climate, much work is ongoing in that regard and will continue.
The bankruptcy issues to which the Deputy referred will be for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to progress.
There are 435,000 people out of work in the country. Having a report prepared on the smart economy and innovation was an initiative taken by the Government, and one I welcome. It was a very good report and, broadly speaking, it is something the Labour Party would support. We might have issues about particular recommendations but by and large this is the direction in which we must go. My difficulty with the Taoiseach's answers is that I cannot put my finger on a single recommendation of this report about which the Government has done anything. The Taoiseach cannot point to a single recommendation that has been implemented. The Taoiseach keeps telling us work on recommendations is ongoing and that this agency and that agency is working on them. The Government announced the establishment of this task force in December 2008 but did not appoint it until the end of June 2009. In fairness to the task force, it reported in March 2010. There was great fanfare in respect of the launch of the task force report, as is normal in respect of the launch of reports. However, the problem we now have is that the Government does not appear to have done anything about it and everything is being long-fingered. It is a great idea. We are all for the smart economy and innovation but nothing is happening.
As the Deputy stated, the report only issued last month. It sets out various short, medium and long-term initiatives which it advises should be progressed in that manner. We are in the process of ensuring that Departments take up recommendations which apply to them and incorporate them into their plans for this and future years. Also, there have been rearrangements in regard to Departments, including the transfer to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation of the programme of research in third level institutions, PRTLI . These are fundamental decisions which are part of a wide range of recommendations which will now be monitored and implemented over the course of the coming months and years. This is precisely as outlined in the report. It is a little facetious to suggest all of this was going to be implemented the following month. That would do a great disservice to what has been done.
The Government has not yet set up the committee.
It is being set up. It is being finalised.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate three recommendations from the innovation report that have been implemented. Given that his nominee, Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, has been appointed to an important and influential position in terms of innovation, which has a €50 billion budget, does the Taoiseach intend to send the task force to meet the Commissioner in a European context or to invite her to meet here with the task force in regard to her proposals, in a European sense, for an innovative strategy for the next ten years?
The Taoiseach will be aware that with the changes that will come in terms of the Internet, robotics, biotechnology and genetics, the world will change utterly in the next decade and that innovation is a central feature in this regard. Is this potentially important dimension of Ireland's membership of the European Union being explored by the task force?
We are already involved in setting up the process by which implementation is taking place. Increasing our competitiveness by reducing costs, stabilising the public finances and preparing for global recovery are not enough to ensure we return to economic growth. Increasing productivity and developing new ways to get a higher quality and quantity of output of goods and services from each unit of input is the key driver of economic performance and sustainability. Innovation in the production and use of ideas, technologies and processes, is important in this context because it is the key driver of productivity. This is what will inform all of the actions of the various Departments in so far as these recommendations affect them.
The report was launched last month and was used by all Ministers during their St. Patrick's Day trips around the world as part of their promotion of the country. We are now in the process of setting up the committee that will monitor implementation of the report. Obviously, the first responsibility lies with the Departments and agencies to whom these recommendations refer. None of the recommendations of which I am aware relate to implementation within the first month. They relate to rearranging how matters are organised, how issues are dealt with by the IDA and Enterprise Ireland in terms of how they interface with technology companies. There are fiscal issues which require to be dealt with in due course in the context of financial provisions by way of Finance Bills, which is the way these matters have always been dealt with down through the years. To suggest otherwise is to seek to be simplistic and rather puerile about what is involved.
Under the seventh programme the Commissioner, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, will continue to liaise with the relevant Departments. It will be a matter for Ireland to apply. The Commissioner must consider the matter in the wider European interest.
I am aware of that. That is the reason it is important the Commissioner is in a position to outline to Government and, in particular, to the task force, her plans so that Ireland can get in early to make a pitch for whatever might be appropriate for us.
The terms of reference delineated by the Taoiseach are precisely what we have been talking about for ages, namely, forcing down Government costs, increasing focus on competitiveness and so on. The Taoiseach should consider meeting the officials of the county enterprise boards who work with small business operators and employers who are literally being strangled by red tape. It would do him the world of good to meet them and obtain their reflections on the system within which they must operate, which system is strangling innovation and directly contradicts what the Taoiseach read into the record in regard to the task force innovation programme.
I did not hear fully the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Gilmore on the €500 million fund. From where will this money come? Has any of it been spent or is there in place a programme in regard to that which it is to be directed at?
As I explained previously to the Deputy, the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, working with Enterprise Ireland, has been leading a market assessment process involving engagement with leading venture capital companies in the United States, Europe and other stakeholders. It is taking account of the impact of recent developments on the domestic and international financial markets as well as the current fund raising rounds in international venture markets. The opportunity is also being taken to avail of the expertise of members of the task force, which has assisted in further defining the role of the fund as part of a wider goal of developing Ireland as an innovation hub. The engagement with the market, led by the NTMA, is continuing and will determine the appropriate timing and structure of funds to be established. This engagement is by its nature confidential. In the meantime, Enterprise Ireland continues to provide venture capital through its existing seed of venture capital programmes.
The NTMA has a particular function. I would like to know from where this €500 million will come and how and on what it will be spent. I support travel by Ministers, in terms of representing the country, to some locations in the context of St. Patrick's Day celebrations. It is Ireland's national day and is an important element of a dimension abroad. In the context of this year's travel, the Taoiseach was quite rightly adamant that every Minister who went abroad meet with a number of companies interested in doing business with Ireland. While the Taoiseach may not have to hand information on this, perhaps he will supply us with a report of the interested companies the Ministers met while representing Ireland abroad and in regard to how we might monitor the benefits to Irish business in terms of investment in Ireland. It would be in everybody's interests to analyse this element of those visits in terms of impact and effect. Perhaps the Taoiseach will in time send me a report in this regard.
Some of that contact and discussion may be commercially sensitive. The Deputy could table a parliamentary question on the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs whose Department collates information in regard to ministerial visits when Ministers return. It is possible for the Deputy to obtain some of the information he requires in this way.
I thank the Taoiseach.
On the previous occasion we had this set of questions, I asked the Taoiseach about Innovation Fund Ireland's €500 million designed to increase the availability of capital for research and development by small and medium companies but his answer at the time was not very clear. Is he now in a position to tell us how much of that fund has been accessed since its establishment? What is the current take up and the processing procedure regarding the fund?
One set of recommendations of the innovation task force is to ensure our education system promotes innovation and creativity. Is the Taoiseach aware that it calls for the raising of levels of competence and attainment in maths and the sciences? How can the Taoiseach reconcile such an objective with imposing savage cuts throughout the entire education budget? The budget for 2010 saw an overall reduction of 4% in the provision for institutes of technology and universities. Students must deal with diminished practical and tutorial supports and limited access to libraries and laboratories. Last winter, the Dublin Institute of Technology had to cancel a raft of opportunities in laboratories and library services were cut. How much more of this can we expect? How does it sit comfortably with the stated objectives of Innovation Fund Ireland's recommendations?
How does the related area of people preparing for third level education in line with the attainment of higher standards of accomplishment in maths and science rest against the further cut in teachers' pay, the reduction in teacher numbers and the increase in class sizes and the pupil-teacher ratio in terms of the passage through second level education in preparation for third level access? It defies understanding. Whatever good there may be in increased bonus points for CAO awards in the area of maths and the sciences, I feel it is cancelled out by all of the other measures introduced in the budget for 2010 throughout the education sector. There is a reduced number of teachers and class sizes have increased. It is totally contradictory and does not stand up to any serious scrutiny whatsoever.
I do not accept that contention. Much work has been done on advancing science and maths and thankfully we are seeing a higher take up this year compared to recent years in terms of leaving certificate participation. Much work is being done on Project Maths. Much effort has been made by professionals and educationalists to try to ensure the attention of the student population is brought to the importance of science, technology, engineering and maths to future career prospects and to encourage a greater level of participation in higher level mathematics by leaving certificate students.
It is important that this happens and there has been some improvement because of the initiatives already taken. More work is required to be done and the question of double points for maths is under consideration as part of the initiative and I believe it is one of the recommendations made. However, this issue is wider and the question of the innovation fund is not simply a matter of public funding; it is a matter of how one leverages private funding and ensures public funding is concentrated in such a way that it can be augmented by existing research capacity in the private sector. Some research will be applied and some will be pure research.
Much funding and capacity has been invested in this area since we started with this strategy on science, technology and innovation. Previously, there had been no overarching strategy. The strategy was introduced some years ago by the Government and has been regarded as successful and far more coherent than what was in place previously. The task force report has further recommendations for consideration in this respect. Moving responsibility for the programme for research in third level institutions to the Department with responsibility for enterprise was part of the process of bringing that funding together into a more single-stream fund where one could see the overall situation and see where the priorities were and the extent of output for the amount of money being provided. This has been regarded by the research community as a great advance.
There is the wider issue of how we develop industrial policy to increase productivity across the board, and not regard this simply as a niche activity but something that relates to the production of goods and services throughout the economy. We must also consider how we can get more from less and use funding that can leverage further funding from the private sector as a means of ensuring that we stay competitive and that we develop product lines that enable us to sell our goods and services competitively in the international marketplace. This will determine the extent to which recovery can take place, growth can return to the economy and employment creation can be generated on a sustainable basis.
I do not agree with the contention that the fact we had to meet budget realities and ensure we indicate at home and abroad that we are prepared to bring our public finances into line has meant the need to adjust our budgets. It is part of a wider objective, which is to ensure that the country is seen to be taking charge of its own destiny and not leaving it to others to make decisions for us.
I have heard the Taoiseach and others of his Cabinet colleagues, particularly a succession of Ministers with responsibility for education, state that education is the engine for the recovery and development of our economy. However, will the Taoiseach accept that the measures he has introduced recently, particularly in the budget for 2010, run totally contrary to that understanding and that what is happening is that we are prolonging the current recession? If education is indeed the engine for recovery and development, is it not the case that taking away from education, as the Government has so savagely done, will prolong the agony and the recession will be deeper and prolonged as a consequence?
Will the Taoiseach accept the innovation task force recommendation to accelerate progress towards the introduction of broadband and fast-track the signalled Government spend under the national development plan of €435 million by 2013 and bring forward the intended date for the full roll-out and spend to 2012 or 2011? Accessibility to broadband throughout the country will itself contribute to a speeding up of recovery in terms of rural economies the length and breadth of the State.
We have been encouraging investment in the broadband sector for some time and have put forward direct funding from the taxpayer through the MANS network. There has been significant improvement in that area, although obviously there is some more work to be done, despite the fact that people like to portray that no progress has been made in that area.
The Deputy suggested that it is possible to continue regardless of the position of the public finances in every area of spend and that not to do so is a backwards step. The problem is that if we do not get our public finances in order, stabilise our deficits and consider, as we will have to do in the coming years, reducing that deficit, we will put at risk all that has been achieved. Therefore, whatever adjustments are being made are against a background of significant improvements during good times.
Some steps backward have to be taken to adjust to the budget realities but the current position is still far better than where we were five, ten or 15 years ago. Unless people are prepared to maintain some sort of perspective on what the economic and financial realities are, this discussion will not be relevant. People are trying to suggest we can continue to borrow €400 million per week regardless and it will all be paid for some day. It is not possible to have that sort of debate or to fail to bring that into the context of what we are talking about.
Considerable investment has been made in a range of areas in education. Only last week, an advanced microscopy laboratory was opened in CRANN, a centre in Trinity College Dublin, with an investment of about €12 million by Government through the Higher Education Authority and Science Foundation Ireland. The most up-to-date microscopes and lasers will be made available to Irish companies, both multinational and local firms. The investment relates to ongoing research in medicine and technology. This is an example of the types of investments that are being suggested by the innovation task force and others.
Through Science Foundation Ireland and the Higher Education Authority, significant funding is being made available to develop incubation facilities in which research can be conducted in a way that allows it to be commercialised thereafter leading to the creation of jobs. While some research is pure or more "blue sky" in nature, much of it is applied. Our objective is to get companies to see the value of research and development, as many of them do, whether in Trinity College Dublin in the type of advanced operation to which I referred or through institutes of technology where various manufacturing and other companies are engaged on an ongoing basis with developing products and services.
In Carlow last week, I saw a good example of local entrepreneurship working with institutes of technology to develop opportunities, jobs, products and services. This is the practical reality for those who are engaged in this area. They have a much more positive view of it than is often portrayed here.
On the specific example cited by the Taoiseach, the various skills of the approximately 10,000 PhD students working here could provide the advanced products that would, in turn, provide the maximum number of jobs, as referred to in the innovation task force report.
I will set out the contradiction evident in the Taoiseach's comments. There are a couple of hundred incubation units in third level colleges and institutes of technology, from which perhaps a couple of dozen advanced products have spun out, including some in which former presidents of universities have put in private equity. Unfortunately, the incubation units are starved of capital and have to place their product in the market. The result is that three or four of the most successful products have been bought immediately by multinational companies from abroad. This means the person who did doctoral and post-doctoral work funded by the Irish taxpayer has been subsidising the research and development budget of a foreign multinational.
I can think of four products which have been sold in this way. Approximately 15 such products have been successful. In each case, the individuals who made these discoveries and applied them technologically have stated that if capital had been available, rather than hiring four people, they could have employed 40 or 50 people or even 400 or 500 people. If funding had been available to capitalise their discoveries, as was understood in the innovation fund, they would not have had to sell on the huge yield of the intellectual work they produced individually and in groups. Instead, we would have kept these high end developments and created the highest quality jobs in our own system instead of, as it were, forcibly migrating them onto those who are getting research on the cheap. While individuals, including those who have put in some private equity, will make a large short-term yield, we will lose the benefit of the investment we made in education, the discovery itself and the employment it creates in future. This does not make sense. Why is the innovation fund not seeking to respond in the short-term to capitalise such projects given the rich yield from them?
I made the point in previous replies that the National Treasury Management Agency is actively seeking to address this issue with Enterprise Ireland and is making some progress. The innovation fund is not simply a publicly funded research programme. It is using publicly funded research in as coherent and cohesive a manner as possible and leveraging venture capital.
It is true that it has been difficult for entrepreneurs to access banking facilities or get capital into some technology companies. Due to the long-term return that is sometimes involved, people find it hard to get support from banks, the State or agencies or moneys that would help them develop their companies and perhaps internationalise them. The idea is to try to develop Irish multinationals, internationalise these companies and prevent their intellectual property value being transmitted or purchased by larger entities. That is an issue which arises from time to time and has been experienced, as the Deputy stated, in some cases, perhaps even the majority of cases. We need to try to change this development.
Enterprise Ireland and other bodies are conscious of the need to find ways and means of supporting companies which have been spun out, such as those to which the Deputy referred, and try to keep them in Irish ownership, with a view to developing them commercially in this country, rather than have their intellectual property sold on to multinationals. In some cases, it is retained in Ireland but in other cases it goes elsewhere.
It is in some respects the prerogative of inventors as to whether they want to bring their idea further along the commercial path or take its immediate value by recognising that there may be a means by which it can be advanced and developed more quickly under a larger company such as a multinational than would be the case if they were to do so themselves. That is a commercial or value judgment that is made by entrepreneurs from time to time. Some stick with it in terms of ownership of the development of the idea, while others sell on their idea. As has been said, what we need to do is try to provide a support structure which will encourage more of them to develop their ideas themselves.
The Taoiseach referred to sums of billions of euro. Many of those who have innovative ideas or are seeking to create jobs require relatively small sums of money. Last week, I spoke to man in my constituency who wants to create jobs for an on-line business. He has been told that while he has been approved for a grant, the city enterprise board ran out of money at the end of April. This is true of enterprise boards around the country. The lethargic response of the Government is not good enough for individuals who want to create jobs immediately. Are options available to the individual to whom I referred to secure funding to create employment and develop the business he has established?
The chairman of a previous task force established following the loss of jobs at Dell, Mr. Denis Brosnan, publicly stated that none of the recommendations produced in his report had been implemented. Have any of his specific recommendations been implemented since Mr. Brosnan made a public statement on the matter a few months ago? One recommendation related to the Lynx Cargo project in Shannon Airport, for which only €7 million was required. Has progress been made on that project? We, in the Chamber, can waffle all day but what we need are specific responses to specific proposals made by specific task forces on specific innovators.
Waffle has become a problem at Question Time.
This question relates to the innovation task force itself, which is what the discussion has been about. If there are specific issues about the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, then the questions should be directed at the Minister who can make that information available to the Deputy.
I have done that. Can that person get money from this innovation fund?
If funds are not in place, they obviously cannot obtain them. It is a question of the Minister figuring out if it is possible to allocate funds out of existing budgets, but that is a matter for him to consider. We have a set amount of money to discharge and it is not a question of finding money, given that we are borrowing a considerable amount of money to do so many other things. The purpose of these exercises is to try to pull together public policy in a way that will bring more effectiveness and greater output for the funds invested. These funds are not infinite.
Is there any extra money for enterprise boards?
That is a question for the line Minister. This is Question Time to the Taoiseach and questions are on general policy rather than specific detail.
It is about innovation and job creation.
The city and county enterprise boards in Limerick can access extra funds through the globalisation fund that has been made available to Dell workers.
I would like to press the Taoiseach on the answer he gave to Deputy Gilmore about promised bankruptcy legislation. There are hundreds of companies going out of business at the moment, not because they are fraudulently or recklessly trading, but because of market conditions, banking conditions and so on. Our bankruptcy laws are from another era and are completely unsuited to dealing with this phenomenon at the moment. Can the Taoiseach indicate when such legislation might be introduced? Which Minister is sponsoring it?
These questions are on the general theme of the task force on innovation.
I do not know if the legislation has yet been drafted. I am aware that various recommendations have been made by the Law Reform Commission and others on the bankruptcy laws. It is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to proceed with the bankruptcy laws, unless it is dealt with by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I will have to check on that.
This is relevant to our discussion and it is dealt with in the report itself. There are many companies going out of business for which this issue is an urgent matter. It is not that complex to develop new legislation that would bring some reprieve.
I wonder if the Deputy could put down a question to the line Minister.
The issue has been raised and I will check up on it before I get back to the Deputy.
3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he plans any changes to the areas of responsibility of the Ministers of State within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12606/10]
4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12963/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
On 23 March 2010 the Government appointed Deputy John Curran as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Defence, and Deputy Dara Calleary as Minister of State at my Department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation with special responsibility for public service transformation and labour affairs. Deputy Dick Roche was reappointed as Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs on 22 April 2009.
As Chief Whip, Deputy Curran 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. In addition, my statutory functions covering the Central Statistics Office have been delegated to the Deputy.
In my Department, Deputy 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. In addition to these duties, Deputy Roche represents the Government at a wide range of EU and international meetings. Deputy Roche 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 and thus fostering enhanced public understanding of EU issues.
Deputy Calleary has special responsibility for public service transformation. This responsibility is in addition to his role as Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for labour affairs. His new role will allow him to co-ordinate the transformation effort across the public service, with a view to creating a more integrated, customer focused, and essentially "fit for purpose" public service.
As always, questions on the functions of particular Ministers of State in other Departments should be tabled to the relevant Ministers.
When Deputy Calleary was appointed Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, it was announced by the Taoiseach in the Dáil and he also said that the Government would appoint a public service board, which would include members from outside the public service with appropriate experience and skills. Has that board been appointed and who is on it? If it has not been appointed, when will this take place?
When the Taoiseach announced the new Ministers of State, he also announced a renaming of various Departments. Since then, the respective Ministers have continued to function under their old titles. Today's Question Paper will have listed the Ministers under their old titles, such as the Minister for Education and Science rather than Education and Skills. Has the idea of renaming Departments been dropped?
Or are they incapable of change?
Does this come under the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary?
No. It is an administrative matter that is being attended to, and I do not attach importance to it.
The public service board has not been appointed and I was anxious to get through it, given the context of the current discussions with the public service on the draft pay agreement. It will be dealt with in due course.
What about renaming the Departments?
No change.
Has there been no change?
No change on the change.
We have had four Chief Whips since I entered this House, yet there has been no Dáil reform. Does Dáil reform mean no reform at all?
The Deputy will have to table a question to a line Minister.
This is the Taoiseach's responsibility.
That is too detailed.
According to the Taoiseach, responsibility for Dáil reform is with the Chief Whip. That is what the question was about.
If we look at the Members who make up the Dáil reform sub-committee, we will get——
Are you blaming them now?
I am asking about the responsibility of the Minister for State, which is what the question was about. Will we see Dáil reform this time?
That is the Minister of State's responsibility and he is working on it.
Is the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, responsible for the implementation of the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008? Employment rights is an area of some considerable concern at a time of high unemployment and growing evidence of employers' abuse of their employees.
That is his responsibility, but under a different Department from mine.
Will the proposed name changes for the Departments require legislation? What will be the statutory basis for the name changes? There is also concern about the decision to abolish the position of Minister of State with responsibility for the drugs strategy. There is a lot of concern that this would signal a lowering of priority for the drugs issue. Given that the office of the Minister with responsibility for drugs was established within the last two years, what now will happen to it?
The Minister, Deputy Pat Carey, is now dealing with that issue, as he did in the past.
Will the OMD continue in existence?
Yes, that will continue in existence. It will answer to the Minister, however, rather than to the Minister of State, so it could not be regarded as a downgrading.
Will legislation be needed to change the name?
Not that I am aware of.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
