Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the way he and his Department formalised the role of the management board in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15214/15]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Civil Service Management
Micheál Martin
Question:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Civil Service Management Board; the number of times it has met; if minutes will be made publicly available; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15216/15]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The management board of the Department of the Taoiseach, currently referred to as the management advisory committee, MAC, meets normally every week. It provides leadership and strategic direction in fulfilling the Department's broad range of business and corporate responsibilities.
In addition to supporting the constitutional functions of the Taoiseach and the Government and assisting the Chief Whip and three other Ministers of State, the Department of the Taoiseach is heavily involved in the formulation and implementation of Government policy across the full range of domestic, EU and international agendas.
For example, in 2014, the Department dealt with 58 Government meetings involving 952 Government memoranda, 76 Cabinet committee meetings, 20,000 pieces of correspondence, 805 parliamentary questions and 173 freedom of information requests. It also provided support for speeches, 220 functions, 190 meetings, 25 overseas trips and more than 100 press events attended by me.
The Department's MAC comprises senior managers in the Department at Secretary General and assistant secretary level as well as the Department's head of corporate services and personnel officer. The minutes of the Department's MAC are circulated to all staff and also published quarterly on the Department's website. There is also regular and ongoing interaction on management issues between me, the Ministers of State in the Department and the senior management team, including through the Cabinet committee structure and other forums.
Following the publication of the Civil Service renewal plan in 2014, the Civil Service Management Board was established. The board is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach and comprises all Secretaries General and heads of major offices. It is overseeing implementation across the Civil Service of all the actions in the renewal plan. The board meets monthly and the minutes of its meetings are available on the website of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has responsibility for Civil Service renewal. Last July, he published a report setting out progress achieved on Civil Service renewal in the first 200 days, including in the following priority areas. First, the accountability board has been established to bring together Civil Service, ministerial and external perspectives on Civil Service performance. It held its first meeting in July and will meet again in November. Second, a performance review process for Secretaries General has been approved and will be introduced for the next performance year, 2016. Third, options to strengthen the disciplinary code have been identified and a revised code developed, which is currently subject to the normal staff consultation process. Fourth, open recruitment campaigns have been held across most Civil Service grades. Fifth, the first Civil Service-wide staff engagement survey, involving more than 38,000 employees, commenced in September to get staff input and to provide a benchmark to measure and compare different Departments.
Work is continuing on delivery of all the actions in the three-year plan with the focus for the next 200 days on the priority areas of strengthening the performance management process for all grades; implementation of a new programme of organisational capability reviews to review the capacity and capability of each Department; publicly recognising staff excellence and innovation, including holding the first Civil Service excellence and innovation awards event later this year; expanding career and mobility opportunities across the Civil Service; improving the delivery of shared whole-of-government projects; strengthening Civil Service communications; and the roll-out of a common corporate governance standard for all Departments and offices.
As part of the Civil Service renewal plan, a draft corporate governance standard for Departments has been developed and published for consultation. Once finalised and agreed by Government, this will require each Department to produce a governance framework setting out the Department's standards of conduct, values and principles of good governance by which it operates. The governance framework will also formally document the role of the management board in Departments.
Unlike many others, I have never agreed with the idea that Ireland is held back by its civil servants. I believe the opposite is the reality. Ireland's civil servants rank highly in international terms and, generally speaking, they show great dedication and commitment to public service and to their country. There is a need for ongoing reform but the programme announced last year by the Taoiseach will not, as he said, transform the Civil Service. It will implement many important improvements, just as many other programmes have done.
The Civil Service Management Board has announced that it will publish a code of practice for special advisers and one element of that is supposed to be a cooling-off period following departure from political service. Will the Taoiseach explain if he is happy with the idea that political special advisers are now eligible to be appointed to permanent senior Civil Service jobs? We have just seen the situation arise where a person who served as a political adviser in this Government up to the middle of last year, and before that for nine years worked directly in a political party, has been appointed as an assistant secretary, a permanent post carrying a starting salary of €120,000 per annum. Is the Taoiseach happy with that? Is he comfortable with the idea that, notwithstanding the code of practice the management board is coming up with, someone can go from a senior political job to a senior Civil Service job while the Government he served is still in office?
In addition to that, in the programme for Government there is a commitment to introduce a reformed incentive system for all grades in all Departments to reward cross-departmental teams that deliver audited improvements in service delivery and cost-effectiveness. Most disability groups will confirm that is not working and that commitment has not been delivered upon. Perhaps the Taoiseach would also say whether all delegation orders to spell out functions of Ministers are in order?
Is it acceptable or reforming that minutes are still not being taken at meetings the Taoiseach and other members of Government attend? When the Minister, Deputy Kelly, met former Vice President, Dan Quayle, president of Cerberus, no minutes were taken then either, because we asked for them. There are other incidents which I deal with in Questions Nos. 3 and 4.
I hope that all delegation orders are in order. I will have that checked for Deputy Martin.
If there is a particular one that Deputy Martin has information about or that is of concern to him, I would be happy to have it checked as a priority.
I understand that the person who had worked in a political capacity went away and worked abroad for a period. The person then applied in the normal way for a position in the public service and came through the process for appointment. The public appointments process is rigid and robust. Choices are made following interviews conducted individually with people who apply.
I am unsure whether Deputy Martin has read the last report from July of this year. The report sets out the progress achieved in the first 200 days in implementing the Civil Service renewal plan.
I have read that.
It is not simply a report, because it sets out all the actions, including details on the person responsible for seeing that certain actions are taken, the person responsible for sponsoring the actions, the progress that has been made and so on.
Deputy Martin made a comment about the quality and range of the public service. In this sense the plan is something akin to the Action Plan for Jobs, whereby actions are time-lined and reported and all of these matters are published on the website of either the Department of the Taoiseach or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which has responsibility in this area. The measures cover the range of Departments, with persons at senior level sponsoring and seeing that these actions are actually applied.
Deputy Martin asked about the minutes taken by Departments. These come through in memoranda for Government and are recorded as formal minutes. The minutes of these management advisory committee meetings are published on a quarterly basis and are on the website of the Department for everyone to read. I am unsure whether that deals with Deputy Martin's question. I will check the question about delegation orders which Deputy Martin raised and come back to him on it.
I have one or two quick questions, although the Taoiseach may have dealt with the matter in his first answer. The minutes of the board are available on the website of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but I can only find records up until May. Were any meetings held after May? If so, when can we expect the minutes of these meetings to be posted?
The Taoiseach made the point that this Civil Service management board has a key role in the Civil Service renewal plan and in the reform under way. The nub of this is contained in an earlier response from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, when he stated:
Public Service Reform is a key element of the Government's overall strategy for recovery. Led by my Department, the reforms delivered over the past four years have enabled us to maintain and improve public services in the face of the necessary reduction in staff numbers and budgets, at a time of increased demand for public services.
That is the nub. I agree that the public service - the Civil Service, in particular - is generally speaking a good service and that the people who work in it do their very best. However, the Government's austerity programme has reduced staff numbers, cut budgets and cut the funding for public services significantly. Is that not at the nub of some of the difficulties?
We have some of the highest rates of low pay in the developed world. To put it better, we have some of the lowest rates of pay in the developed world in this State. Given that the Government is the largest employer in the State, has the Taoiseach considered introducing a living wage of €11.45 throughout the Civil Service? Would that not increase morale and ensure greater productivity by civil servants?
The Government has tried to be practical and prudent in the allocation of resources made available by the people through their sacrifices in recent years. While not every expectation could be met, the Government has, within the resources available to it, tried to prioritise the areas involved in this case.
One of the first decisions made by the Government was to reverse the cut in the minimum wage, which brought another 300,000 back into that. We followed that with the setting up of the Low Pay Commission. This was the responsibility of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Nash. There was a reason for this. Previously, we had a haphazard and uncertain system of determining wage increases for lower paid workers. The Low Pay Commission did a good job in pointing out the critical points where consideration should be given for an increase in wages. When the commission was launched earlier this year by myself, the Tánaiste, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, we said that when it reported the Government would respond through the budget. That has happened. By way of balance we know that, for example, when lower paid workers reach the level of €352 per week, they would be worse off getting an increase to the minimum wage unless they received an adjustment in PRSI. Clearly, in that regard we need a balance for employers in order that the burden does not fall unduly on the employer and we responded to that in the budget. I would like to think that the best opportunity to deal with lower wages and increase a person's potential is to have upskilling, retraining and a better job. The living wage is something that I accept in principle, of course. However, I would like to think that we could give greater opportunity to those who work and demonstrate that work actually pays - for them that is the way it should be.
Some points may be of interest to Deputy Adams. In the first 200 days of the plan a number of things have changed across the Civil Service. Open recruitment campaigns were held for principal officer, assistant principal officer, administrative officer, executive officer and clerical officer grades in the Civil Service. They have built on existing arrangements. Options to strengthen the disciplinary code were identified and a revised code was drafted as a consequence. A total of 11 town hall events were held throughout the country, including in Dublin, Wexford, Kilkenny, Galway, Sligo, Cork and Athlone. Events for Dundalk and Limerick are scheduled. The primary purpose of the meetings held, and to be held, is to take observations and suggestions from members of the Civil Service and build confidence and trust. These events facilitate regional input into the Civil Service renewal plan and allow staff an opportunity to network outside their normal office space. A panel consisting of senior civil servants facilitated discussions with audience questions. The issues raised included mobility within the Civil Service, open recruitment, learning and development and where opportunities exist for self-betterment. The first mobility policy for senior managers at principal officer level was agreed and the first moves are expected shortly. This builds on the existing mobility programme at assistant secretary level. A chief human resources officer was appointed. A total of 13 open policy debates have been held to date. These have involved policy networks, practitioners, academics and experts in a range of policy areas. The topics covered include education reform, national risk assessment, a labour market symposium and future investment in early years education.
A Civil Service customer satisfaction survey was completed by 2,000 people and published in May 2015. The survey results highlighted strong and stable satisfaction levels. The first Civil Service engagement survey involved 38,000 people. A proposed model for learning and development to improve capability through enhanced procurement and shared delivery of training throughout the Civil Service was agreed. The Civil Service excellence in innovation awards is a new annual event to recognise staff excellence and innovation in the Civil Service. As Deputy Martin pointed out, the reputation of our Civil Service is exceptionally high.
A common corporate governance standard for all Departments has been developed for the first time. This will be finalised following public consultation. The approach for a new programme for organisational capability to review capacity and capability has been agreed in respect of every Department. An information and communications technology strategy to deliver more online services and better outcomes in efficiency through innovation and excellence in ICT was published in the first quarter of this year and implementation is under way. An enhanced performance review process for assistant secretaries has been developed and is being piloted by four Departments in quarter 3 of 2015. That is progress and represents active engagement from the Civil Service in respect of how things might be improved with a view to services being provided more efficiently and so on.
Departmental Records
Micheál Martin
Question:3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the formal processes and mechanisms for documenting decisions made within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15215/15]
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that the standard of record keeping in his Department, including the maintenance of minutes of meetings, is adequate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31706/15]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Records in my Department are created and held in compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Acts, the Freedom of information Act and the National Archives Act. Minutes are taken of meetings held in my Department where judged appropriate. For example, records are kept of all decisions taken at Government meetings on the basis of memoranda submitted by Ministers. Records are kept of all Cabinet committee meetings and circulated to relevant Ministers and a note is normally taken of meetings I have in the Department with delegations or interest groups.
My Department has a designated member of staff who is responsible for managing the Department’s records and a designated certifying officer who is responsible for compliance with the National Archives Act 1986. National Archives staff assist with work relating to the annual transfer of Departmental records to the National Archives. These staff maintain a central registry record-keeping system, comprising a registry file tracking system and a central repository for the storage of departmental records. The location of files in the Department is monitored from the time of their creation until they are transferred to the National Archives for permanent preservation. In-house workshops on the creation and maintenance of records have been provided for staff by relevant officials from the Department and the National Archives.
The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has been established to give guidance and leadership in the development of an ICT and record management strategy across the Civil Service. My Department will actively engage with this work. This Government has also introduced a range of legislative reforms to increase transparency, including a restoration and enhancement of the freedom of information legislation, a new protected disclosures regime and ground-breaking legislation to regulate lobbying.
Members will be aware of the move from a 30-year to a 20-year release of records. The British Government did this and, clearly, one does want to see a situation whereby papers relevant to one Government in respect of, for instance, Northern Ireland would be released many years earlier than would normally follow here. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, is examining the issue and the Government has given its approval to move to that system.
I note the Taoiseach's reply states that records are kept where judged appropriate, which is an interesting phrase. It would seem to suggest that there is wriggle room for him and others to decide the taking of minutes may not be appropriate.
In his constant drive to avoid being accountable, the Taoiseach has, of course, refused to answer detailed questions in the House about his role in the departure of the former Garda Commissioner. Central to the evidence heard by Mr. Justice Fennelly is that not only did he not keep minutes of his discussions, he did not even record a decision, in particular a crucial meeting at which the Taoiseach was present along with the Secretary General of his Department, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General. A serious decision was taken at that meeting to send the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the Commissioner's house with a message that the Taoiseach may not have confidence in him the following morning. The judge is absolutely scathing of the fact that there is no record or minutes of the meeting or of the decision taken. No one took minutes of the discussions. I suggest that is how one can end up with the situation whereby the majority of those present at the meeting end up disagreeing with the Taoiseach's evidence. One person went as far as to describe the Taoiseach's story as a fantasy.
The Taoiseach's failure to keep a single record of what he admits were a gravely serious set of meetings goes 100% against the statement he has just made and he has repeatedly made during Question Time over the past four years. He said to me that under him every meeting would be minuted, even if he was talking to a constituency delegation. He used a colourful phrase at one stage. A delegation from a constituency came to speak to him, during which he thumped the table and he said even that was recorded. He said no meeting would be too small to record everything in minutes.
Some three or four years ago he made a nasty slur against his predecessor and used innuendo to the effect that records could have been disappeared and so on. He belatedly withdrew that statement two years later and said he should not have said it, even though the decision his predecessor took had 149 documents backing it up. The Taoiseach has said consistently that he wants the full minutes of everything that was discussed.
Can the Taoiseach explain why, at the meeting between him, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Secretaries General of his Department and the Department of Justice and Equality and the Attorney General, the standards upon which he insisted were not met? Can he accept that his failure to ensure any record was kept leaves us a conflict of evidence, whereby a member of his party has said his evidence was fantasy? Surely that is a real step backwards rather than the proper reform which he advocated. Does the Taoiseach regret that no minutes were taken or record kept of what was an extremely important meeting, leading as it did to a commission of investigation having to be established? Mr. Justice Fennelly is absolutely scathing in his report about the absence of any record of the meeting. Does the Taoiseach apologise for no record being kept and regret the fact no minutes of meeting exist?
Deputy Martin referred to accountability. The issues examined in the interim report by the sole member were referred from the Oireachtas committee dealing with justice and other matters and were included in the terms of reference for the commission of investigation by me, with the approval of the Government. In that regard, I was fully accountable to the commission of investigation and was very happy to welcome the clear and unambiguous findings of the sole member. There was, of course, a decision recorded to the effect that there should be a commission of investigation in the first instance, and that was brought to the Government the following day in regard to setting it up.
The Deputy referred to the groups which come before me. All such engagements with the political process with me in the job I hold, be with they companies, organisations, firms or anything else, have note takers to record the issues discussed and any conclusions arrived at. That is done in the case of every single outside entity that comes before me. I have referred to this case before, where a decision was taken that there should be a commission of investigation, and that was brought to-----
Not at the meeting to which I referred. Be honest and specific about what I have asked. I asked about the meeting with the Secretary General.
The Deputy started off by saying that I was not accountable. I was accountable to a commission of investigation conducted by a sole member who had evidence in person and in writing from all the people who were at the meeting, and I was happy to welcome his conclusions. As I said, on the other matters the Deputy mentioned, outside bodies and organisations always have a departmental note taker to record the issues discussed and any conclusions arrived at.
Can I ask a supplementary question?
Just one. There is a group of questions coming up.
The Taoiseach refused to answer the specific question I asked, namely, why minutes of the meeting on the evening when he sent the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to the former Garda Commissioner's house were not taken. Mr. Justice Fennelly is absolutely scathing of the failure to record the meeting.
The Taoiseach referred to note takers. There were two Secretaries General present, namely, the Secretary General to the Department of the Taoiseach and the Secretary General to the Department of Justice and Equality. Why did the Taoiseach not instruct them to take notes of the proceedings? Will he acknowledge that he did not do so, that no note was taken at the meeting, and will he explain why? Does he regret it?
It is nothing to do with the decision to decide on a commission of investigation. The Taoiseach tried to slip that in as an answer, but it is not an answer and has nothing to do with it. A judge, in his conclusion, cannot believe that there are no minutes of the meeting. Why is that the case? Will the Taoiseach accept that no minutes were taken?
I want to quote from the programme for Government which commits the Government parties to bring an end to the "unacceptable executive practice where no record is kept of ministerial involvement with an issue and resulting decisions".
I am also reminded of the Taoiseach's first speech in the House as Taoiseach, when he told us and the people of the State:
today I enter into a covenant with the Irish people. In these times of crisis, full of many unknowns, honesty is not alone our best policy but our only policy. The new Government will tell the people the truth regardless of how unwelcome or difficult that might be. We will tell it constantly and unreservedly.
However, there has been no effort to keep this in spirit or in practice or to bring it into law.
There are a number of controversial examples of this, including the one which has just been cited of the crucial meeting involving the Taoiseach and the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality before he was dispatched to the home of the former Garda Commissioner. There are various takes and versions of what happened at that meeting. The Tánaiste of the day, Deputy Gilmore, stated the Taoiseach told him it was his position that he may not be able to express confidence in the Commissioner at the following day's Cabinet meeting. The Taoiseach denies this. There is no minute to verify which one of them is telling the truth. Was it a deliberate act that no minute was taken? Was a decision taken, even informally, that it would not be minuted or was it just bad practice? Did someone forget to do it? We also have the 23 meetings on Irish Water that took place between Bord Gáis Éireann and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government between April and September 2012. Of these 23 meetings, only ten had minutes and of these five amounted to one typed page. The former Minister, Phil Hogan, had two meetings with-----
We are straying a bit now, Deputy.
It is the same point-----
No, it is not.
-----because there are no minutes of two meetings which-----
This is questions to the Taoiseach.
If I understand it, this is about documenting decisions-----
Record-keeping in his Department.
Fair enough. I make the point that the commitment was given by the Taoiseach that he would end the practice up until then of not minuting meetings, whereby no record was kept of ministerial involvement in an issue and resulting decisions. Famously, this was the case over a range of meetings between Ministers and, in this particular case, the former Minister, Mr. Hogan, and Bord Gáis Éireann officials.
Coming to my point, we are advised that the election will not be until spring so there is still time to bring into law what the Taoiseach committed to do in the programme for Government. We still have time to introduce legislation, in consultation with Opposition parties and with their support. There is still time to bring in new practices and rules in the Government and Civil Service to ensure proper minutes are kept by Departments. Perhaps this would save this issue being perpetually flung at the Taoiseach in the last throes of the Government. Will he do this? Will he use the next short period to introduce the legislation required?
Deputy Adams is aware that minutes are taken of every Government meeting, of all Cabinet sub-committee meetings and of meetings with outside organisations, agencies, companies and individuals. I am quite sure there are meetings on a regular basis between public servants about issues of progress, and they are probably not deemed to be formal meetings. In the case of the meeting referred to, the people who were present at it, including myself, made written statements to the commission of investigation and proceeded to give oral evidence at the committee of investigation. This was considered and presented in the report which was published on 1 September by the commission.
No minute was taken.
I was happy to-----
Does the Taoiseach accept that? Does he accept no minute was taken? Will the Taoiseach answer the question?
Sorry, Deputy, please.
I was happy to note the report took account of all of the evidence provided and sets out in detail-----
Does the Taoiseach accept the basic point that no minute was taken?
Deputy Martin cannot be shouting from the sidelines.
-----the sole member's findings and conclusions about the matter.
On a point of order, does the Ceann Comhairle's power to assess whether a Minister or the Taoiseach has answered a question apply to these oral exchanges?
It is not a matter for the Chair to decide whether the Deputy has got a satisfactory answer or not.
Is there a mechanism for ministerial questions?
No, there is no mechanism-----
A written appeal?
-----whereby I can demand a different reply to a particular question.
I will not ask the Ceann Comhairle to demand that. I would not do that to him, because to demand a clear reply from the Taoiseach is a task too gargantuan for the Ceann Comhairle or anybody else at this stage.
Let us not waste time. We have spent 33 minutes on these four questions and I want to move on.
The Taoiseach should have answered the question. He had a meeting that effectively sacked a Garda Commissioner and took no minute of it and he will not give a straight answer.
I ask Deputy Martin to please respect the Chair. One thing that should not go out the window is respect for the Chair, whoever is in it.
Economic Management Council Meetings
Micheál Martin
Question:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Economic Management Council met in April 2015. [18119/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Economic Management Council has met since the new year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22957/15]
Gerry Adams
Question:7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will confirm that the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland briefed the Economic Management Council on the possible implications of a Greek exit from the European Union and the euro; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31705/15]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:8. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if the Economic Management Council met before the budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31769/15]
Joe Higgins
Question:9. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Economic Management Council Cabinet Committee took place. [31775/15]
Ruth Coppinger
Question:10. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Economic Management Council took place; and when the next one is scheduled for. [31782/15]
Micheál Martin
Question:11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Economic Management Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32870/15]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, together.
The council has met on 15 occasions during 2015. The last meeting took place on 16 September. The council met on six occasions in April this year.
The Governor of the Central Bank has attended a number of council meetings since the Government came into office. As a Cabinet committee, confidentiality of discussions at the Economic Management Council are protected by the Constitution and, in line with long-standing practice, it is not appropriate to answer questions about proceedings at the council and the agendas of past or future meetings.
The council provides a forum to discuss strategic issues before they are presented to Government for consideration and decision. This may include issues of a budgetary nature.
Like other Cabinet committees, it does not replace the role of Government where all Ministers have an opportunity to contribute to decision-making. The budget was discussed and agreed by the entire Cabinet.
I have tabled two of these questions. The Taoiseach has frequently praised the work of the Economic Management Council because it supposedly keeps a very close eye on all economic and fiscal issues. Does he not agree that given the lack of progress on homelessness and housing it seems the Economic Management Council, despite having 15 meetings in more recent times, is not in as much control of the situation as the Taoiseach might have thought previously? Despite economic growth, more than 1,500 children, an 80% increase, live in emergency accommodation and up to 5,000 people are homeless. There is policy chaos around housing and homelessness.
The Economic Management Council must keep a close eye on the fiscal situation, but on the Friday before the budget approximately €700 million was allocated to health on top of last year's €600 million supplementary budget. There seems to be either gross mismanagement or deliberate fraudulent estimates in health at the outset of the year, where clearly the budgets allocated are not realistic, adequate or robust enough, despite what the Minister says at the beginning of every year. Last year, the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, stated he had received enough. Clearly he did not and neither did he get enough the previous year. Does the Taoiseach believe the model of the Economic Management Council is adequate, because the health services are in chaos? There is no stability in our health services at present. They are in chaos. Morale is very low. Staffing and supports have been under-resourced. We pointed out to the Taoiseach four key areas where savings revenue could be raised to support health services, including the recouping of fees from private medical insurers, agency staff, drug procurement and a tax on sugar sweetened drinks. We backed this up with research from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, the Department of Finance's report and the Revenue Commissioners with regard to a tax on sugar sweetened drinks.
The Economic Management Council's grip and impact on policy seems to be less and less influential. We have no idea about the extension of free GP care to 12 year olds because the money allocated does not go anywhere near a full extension. One wonders if it is like the promises made five years ago, in that they are not real in the sense of any commitment to implement them over the coming 12 months. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, has already clarified that not every child will be covered by the child care commitment in the budget and that it will be September at the earliest before the programme is introduced. Is the Economic Management Council overseeing all of this? The money needed to fulfil commitments made by Ministers is not provided, with the result that we have budgetary figures which are at best open to question and, in some instances such as health, are in my view clearly very dishonest.
I do not know how the Economic Management Council of the Cabinet can stand over what has happened in health budgets over the past three years, particularly their inaccuracy, dishonesty and falsity. False figures are being given to the Dáil every year for health services.
You are making serious allegations and you know that is not parliamentary behaviour. You are saying that false information is deliberately being given to the Parliament.
The figures we got for health-----
You are here as long as I am. You know you cannot say such things.
Can one not say a Government is being dishonest?
You should not say that false figures are being given.
I said it at the time, two years ago.
You should not have said so. I am sorry but if I was in the Chair, I should have stopped you.
I was proven correct. It is €600 million this year and it was €600 million the year before.
You should not accuse people of deliberate falsehoods.
It is my political view that the books-----
You may have a political view but making a statement of fact is another thing.
There is plenty of precedent. When Fine Gael was on this side of the House, it accused plenty of Governments in the past of producing fraudulent figures.
I was not in the Chair.
The bottom line is that discretionary medical cards were taken from very sick children because the figures were falsified at the time. We were given a phrase along the lines of "probity controls" and nobody knew what it meant. To be fair to the Minister at the time, Deputy Reilly, he said he could not stand over the figures the day after the budget was announced. The Economic Management Council and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform stood over them. What happened? When we went forward seven or eight months, it transpired that those figures were never going to be anywhere near meeting the need. That caused chaos and distress for many families, and the same has happened over the past 12 months. There has been much distress caused to front-line workers in the health area because they were told to operate within a budget.
Late one night, a white paper or a Supplementary Estimate was produced, releasing an extra €1.5 billion, and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council was not even told about it. There was much hype on a day when €1.5 billion was given out, involving presentations and media handlers, but in the previous four or five days, another €1.5 billion was given out and there was not a word about it in that we cannot get information about it. We had to go searching for that information about what it is for and what Departments would be affected. Over the past three years, the Government's handling of the fiscal position in health has been disgraceful. I am very clear that it has been dishonest, in my view, as the Government wanted to get its figures right on the tax front. It was a certain political operation for the budgets for the past three years and health was getting in the way. These were never real figures for the health sector.
That has been going on and there is a need for a very honest debate about our health services, particularly about what they need. The HSE has not got the required level of funding to perform the level of services that the Government wanted it to perform over the past three years. Nobody can dispute that reality, as there has been a chronic mismatch between the level of services that people want and which the Government has ordained should happen against the resources put to that end. Despite meeting 15 times, the Economic Management Council has allowed chaos to reign in health, as well as in housing and homeless policy.
I thank the Deputy. When the Government was elected to office, the economic position was very precarious. We were blocked from international markets, interest rates were 15% and we were haemorrhaging jobs by the hundred thousand. Unemployment was at 15.2%, with national debt rising and the deficit at €22.5 billion. Given the changes, decisions and sacrifices accepted by the people, we are now in a very different position and we hope to have the deficit eliminated by the end of 2017 or early 2018. That will bring about a very different scenario for the country, whoever the people decide to elect in the mean time.
I have always considered that the operation of the Government in this case involves two parties, the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party. With respect, one of the important issues at a time of crisis was that the leaders of the parties - with a Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform working in the financial area - had regular contact, updates and dialogue, meaning that everybody knew, as the issue evolved from day to day or week to week, what decisions needed to be looked at and made. I have said it before publicly that the Governor of the Central Bank said to me that it was quite likely that in a particular week it could have been necessary to put the Army around automated teller machines and tell people that capital controls would have to be introduced, which would have been absolutely disastrous for people in Ireland. That was avoided. The purpose of the Economic Management Council was to have continuous engagement where it was necessary and appropriate. In its own way, it had an impact on keeping the discipline and character of the Government very much focused on the job we had to do.
The Deputy has raised a couple of serious issues, including homelessness. It is not acceptable that 1,500 children should not have a home to go to. It is unacceptable. The problem is that the total collapse of the construction sector meant we were coming from a very low base. As Deputies know, we were building 90,000 houses per year and that dropped to approximately 8,500 per year. It needs to be approximately 20,000 or 25,000 for a number of years in order to deal with the issue, so it will not be sorted out in the short term. Through Cabinet sub-committees and the Ministers responsible for the environment, finance and others, there have been a series of decisions about what needs to be done. Decisions were made at the Cabinet sub-committee and referenced through the Economic Management Council to the Cabinet last year in respect of homelessness and rough sleepers on the streets. These dealt with the purchase of the night café, extra resources given to homelessness housing agencies and so on. That made a big difference but the matter is now very challenging and it must be dealt with through the social housing scheme, which is nationwide, with money on the table. With regard to private rented accommodation, the Department of Social Protection is in a position to assist in each individual case where there is pressure on a tenancy. There is also the restoration of what are called "voids", or places that were not habitable; they are being done up and made comfortable for people. The Minister is proceeding to use his authority under the Acts to expedite modular housing in two tranches of 150 and 350. I hope he will have a modest number in position by the end of the year.
This is not an acceptable position. The construction sector can give a response that must be practical and incentivised, and there should be a return in that case. We have spoken about development levies and the building regulations, as distinct from planning regulations, which are completely independent. There are questions, for example, as to whether one needs two or three car spaces per bedroom in units and other issues also must be addressed, such as requirements for fire safety conditions and so on. Getting this moving is a multi-edged challenge. It is not a question of money but managing the resource to make it happen. We can consider the thousands of planning applications that contractors will not commence because there is no return because of development levies and the extent of building regulations etc. These issues must be examined. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly; his Minister of State, Deputy Coffey; the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin; and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, are working very hard in that area-----
It is chaotic.
-----but I would like to see results as quickly as we can.
The Deputy mentioned the health area. He knows from bitter experience-----
Not bitter, no.
-----the position since the Health Service Executive was set up. Each year the Minister would approve a budget and he or she would refer it to the HSE, which would then prepare a health service plan. That would come back to the Minister for approval and be sent back to the HSE for implementation. In many cases, as the Deputy is aware, the plan was never followed, either because something else happened or money was not ring-fenced for particular areas, such as mental health. That was pointed out on many occasions.
This resulted in a very unsatisfactory position. Of course, it is always difficult with demand-led services where a population is growing at the more senior level and where there is a greater demand for health services. Next year, as Deputy Martin is aware, we are out of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. There will no longer be an opportunity to have Supplementary Estimates. If money falls short in any Department, it will have to be made up either from savings in another Department or within the Department itself. That is a very changed situation. In respect of the allocations made in the Supplementary Estimates going into each Department, obviously the growth in the economy has been very strong. Many of these were commitments in any event, and for 2016, Ministers were able to stay within the terms set out in the spring statement. Having said that, there are still clearly pressures and demands in many Departments and it has not been possible for Government to meet all the demands. So-----
There are two other Deputies who have questions in this group.
Gabh mo leithscéal.
The Taoiseach is aware that there is a concern about the expanding power and role of the Economic Management Council, EMC. It was originally established, as the Taoiseach has outlined, with the status of a Cabinet committee to manage the Government's programme on economic planning, budgetary matters and banking policy coming out of the crash. I can understand, to a certain degree, the logic of that and the need to have a focus on those matters. However, it appears that its power and influence have grown, in so far as it is possible to tell from the opaque answers we sometimes get to questions to establish this. It appears that the EMC acts almost as a Government within the Government and then brings forward its decisions to the Cabinet, and also that some of the senior people - civil servants and political advisers - who attend these meetings may well have more influence on the decisions taken than do members of the Cabinet itself. There is a question about whether the role, the decisions and the actions of the economic council are replacing the constitutional responsibility of the Cabinet.
There are also big issues that need to be dealt with. There are hundreds of citizens on hospital trolleys. Has the economic council discussed that? There is the issue of rent certainty or the lack thereof. Has the economic council discussed that? There is an ongoing issue around the lack of Government plans to tackle the housing and homelessness crisis. The Taoiseach says that homelessness is not acceptable. With absolute respect, let me say that homelessness is a direct consequence of his Government's policy and it is acceptable to the Government. It would not be happening if the Taoiseach decided to stop it happening and if he got houses built for those people who need them. I raised the plight of the Traveller community earlier. Its accommodation funding was cut by 93%. Imagine - a 93% cut. Did the Economic Management Council take that decision?
I asked question No. 7. I do not recall the Taoiseach answering it, although he may have and I may have missed it, and if so, I apologise. I asked him to confirm whether the Governor of the Central Bank briefed the EMC on the possible implications of a Greek exit from the European Union and the euro. If he has not answered that, I would be obliged if he would tell us whether that happened. Could he tell us what meetings, if any, the EMC has had with the banks in the last year?
Could Deputy Adams repeat the last question?
How many meetings, if any, has the EMC had with the banks in the last year?
Would Deputy Boyd Barrett like to put his question? I would be more comfortable if we were not rushing.
Who is advising the Economic Management Council on the economics of housing? Whoever they are should be sacked. We are facing the worst housing and homelessness crisis in the modern history of the State. No matter how much the Government talks about it and makes announcements, it gets worse on a daily basis. Under the Taoiseach's stewardship, the housing lists have gone from 96,000 to 130,000. That is a disastrous failure by any definition. The number of children and families living in homelessness increased exponentially. Waiting lists have gone from approximately eight or nine years, which was bad, to 18 years. The wait is 18 years in Dún Laoghaire if one joins the housing list now.
This is an index of disastrous failure, which is now not just affecting people who would traditionally have had difficulty affording a home, but is reaching up into every sector of society. Nobody who is not very rich can afford to put a roof over his or her head. That is where we are at. Anybody who finds themselves, for whatever reason, without a roof over their head and looking for one, is, by definition, in trouble, unless they are earning €70,000 or €80,000 a year, which most people are not. We now have the phenomenon of the working homeless, people who are going out to work and are sleeping in different hostels on different nights, trying to do a full day's work while not knowing where they will be sleeping that night. That is what is going on. It is beyond belief.
I am asking what advice the Economic Management Council is getting on this. The Taoiseach made a very telling statement on budget day: when asked about rent controls, he said that while he was looking at the matter - we keep looking at these matters but doing nothing about them - he would not be doing anything that would interfere with the market. In other words, it was an economic decision that was informing his refusal to introduce rent controls. As he well knows, one of the major contributory factors to the homelessness and housing crisis is spiralling rents that are unaffordable and consequent evictions, or the inability of people to access affordable housing, because we are essentially dependent on the private sector. Is this not the problem? Whatever advice or economic doctrine the Taoiseach is working on is telling him we must not interfere with the market, and that is the fundamental problem; in fact, we absolutely must interfere with the market. He needs some advice from somebody who will tell him that we desperately need to interfere with the market and that we must not allow the market to dictate this issue or imagine that the market is going to solve it, when he has pursued this policy of hoping the market will sort the problem out for the entire duration of this Government and the market has self-evidently not sorted the problem out. Does the Taoiseach accept that? Does he accept that the advice is wrong, the policy has been wrong and the problem is continuously getting worse? If we do not get that admission, we are on a hiding to nothing in terms of a chronic situation.
Finally, on the economics of housing, the Taoiseach keeps saying that we need to increase supply. First of all, it has not happened. He keeps referring to the fact that we built 90,000 houses during the boom and now building has dropped to abysmal levels, so what we need to do is get supply up. Would he acknowledge the basic economic point, and does the EMC even discuss this point, that even when we were building 90,000 houses per year, mostly private, during the boom, the housing crisis was still getting worse? The numbers on the housing list were increasing even then. The idea that supply equals demand - this economic notion - is just nonsense. Is the Taoiseach getting any contrarian advice, to use the Nyberg phrase, in the aftermath of the analysis of economic crash? Is he getting any contrarian advice that is challenging the orthodoxy-----
Just allow for a reply.
-----that supply equals demand, because it clearly does not?
Deputy Adams raised the point about the Economic Management Council and whether it was assuming the constitutional responsibility of the Cabinet. It is not. The Economic Management Council, if it discusses an issue of financial control or whatever, must present its recommendation to the full Cabinet.
It is not the Cabinet. It is not assuming any constitutional responsibility beyond its remit and any recommendation from the Economic Management Council has to be validated, verified and accepted by the entire Cabinet.
The sub-committee on health discusses the issues surrounding health with the relevant Ministers from different Departments on a cross-departmental basis and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform would have met each of the Ministers individually in regard to their proposals for what they required in regard to the final decision to be taken as to what they would be allocated.
I cannot recall at which meeting, if any, that the Governor might have briefed on the Greek exit, although on a number of occasions the Cabinet discussed that matter as to what might happen.
There were 15 meetings of the EMC last year and while the EMC worked with the banks, there were three meetings with the banks. I do not have the dates to hand. If Deputy Adams wishes, I will get them for him.
In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, the EMC is not advised by anybody in respect of housing. It is not a housing committee. The social policy committee, on construction, deals with the question of housing at Cabinet sub-committee level and all of the relevant Departments and all of the senior personnel attend there.
I agree it is not acceptable that this 18 year waiting list applies. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is an area well known to the Ceann Comhairle. I note the burgeoning pages of some of the newspapers with lots of superior houses in locations there for sale, and some of them appear to be moving a far distance from those who are homeless or who need housing now.
On what I stated previously about the rent, there are multiple and complex reasons for all of this: the recovery in the economy, the growth in the numbers at work, delayed home ownership, the reduction in the traditional bed-sit accommodation in Dublin because of new regulations and the exit from the rental market of landlords for a range of reasons. Many of the problems stem from the chronic lack of supply of housing which causes a knock-on problem across the property market and wider society, from renters to first-time buyers to low-income households, and the only sustainable solution is to increase the supply of affordable housing generally.
It did not work during the boom.
If there is a room available in Dún Laoghaire for rent and there are 20 persons looking for it, clearly, the owner has a choice who to give that to and, as a consequence, rent rises. If there are 20 rooms to rent and 20 persons looking for them, it is a different situation.
It did not work during the boom. Rents went up.
The point that we made clearly is let us not make matters worse. A lot of the talk that is going on about this is not helping the situation. The Ministers, Deputies Kelly and Noonan, are working on this assiduously to see what practical package of measures can be put together here.
There was a report by DKM, which was commissioned by the Housing Agency and the Private Residential Tenancies Board, which warned last year that introducing rent controls would make the current situation worse for tenants because rent controls would, all things being equal, reduce the supply of rental accommodation pushing market rents up higher than they would otherwise be for all tenants for a short space of time. That is the balancing line.
The Taoiseach should sack DKM. It is rubbish.
If one interferes in the wrong way and one makes it worse, that is not good for anybody.
Rubbish. The Taoiseach should sack them.
That is why the relevant Ministers are discussing a package of measures rather than reduce the supply of rental properties and increase, rather than reduce, the security of tenure available to those renting in the private market. That is an important message.
The Taoiseach needs another adviser.
While commentators have a facile view that simply by doing this everything will be rosy, that is not so. To interfere in the wrong way would be damaging to everybody.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.