Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the National Economic and Social Development Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15408/04]
View answerWednesday, 16 June 2004
Questions (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office. [16326/04]
View answerEnda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17232/04]
View answer
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office; the associated costs which have accrued to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17238/04]
View answer
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Development Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17635/04]
View answerOral answers (25 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
The National Economic and Social Development Office is funded from subhead M of my Department's Vote. The costs which have accrued to date to my Department in respect of NESDO since its establishment in 2001 amount to €1.276 million. The priorities for NESDO for the coming year are to promote complementary programmes of research, analysis and discussion by the NESC, NESF and NCPP.
NESDO will also continue to provide shared administration and support services for those three bodies in order to obtain best possible value for money. It will submit reports, recommendations and conclusions by any or all of the constituent bodies to Government and arrange for their publication.
The National Centre for Partnership and Performance has been proactively promoting change and innovation, through partnership, in our workplaces. As borne out by the centre's case studies and review of international experience, partnership works as a positive force for change and it enhances outcomes for both employers and employees. As the ESRI studies commissioned by the centre show, employees want more, not less, partnership.
The work currently taking place at the Forum on the Workplace of the Future on how workplaces can adapt to competitive pressures, improve the delivery of services and meet the changing needs of the workplace, will be of particular importance in this regard.
Will the Taoiseach give us a more precise idea of the savings which will accrue as a result of the amalgamations which have led to the formation of the National Economic and Social Development Office? What is the order of staffing in the office and what synergies does the Taoiseach think the amalgamation brings in terms of the contribution he expects it to make? In terms of parliamentary accountability, will the office remain within the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach and will the Taoiseach continue to answer questions on it in the House?
Yes. The office will still be directly linked to the Department of the Taoiseach. The savings for 2002-2003, which was a costly year, were of the order of 8% and that figure will grow because non-recurring costs were included, such as those for staff moving into their new office in Parnell Square. The expenditure on NESDO is approximately €3.4 million, while that on NESC and NESF is quite small and the costs of NCPP are just in excess of €1 million. NESDO has three staff, NESC has seven, NESF has six and NCPP has eight. There is a slight duplication of staff because the chief executive officer of NESDO is included in figures for two bodies. Therefore, there are 22 or 23 people in the office.
In the context of the synergies to which Deputy Rabbitte referred, the primary role of NESDO is to add value to the work of the constituent bodies by creating the conditions under which synergies can be released, joint projects pursued and the potential for duplication — which the offices had identified was inherent in the system — minimised. The office promotes the development of a shared vision for realising these goals and encouraging the constituent bodies to maximise their efforts to collaborate on policy development initiatives and this is working quite well. The bodies will not lose their individual positions. NESC will continue to provide strategic analysis through its reports and will develop the national framework within which discussions on future national agreements and various other issues will take place. NESF will continue to monitor and analyse the implementation of specific measures and programmes identified in the context of social partnerships, especially those to do with issues of equality and social inclusion, and NCPP will continue to focus on bringing about change and improving performance in the workplace through partnership.
I am satisfied the terms of reference of the three bodies are complementary and that they can gain a great deal from working in the one building with a joint administration. They will each play their own role when necessary but will also work collectively, which the bodies have proven they do well. Under the umbrella of NCPP, a programme was undertaken last year, including a workplace forum and various conferences and other activities through which the bodies did an enormous amount of work which was totally focused on change and improving performance through partnership in the workplace. The programme was developed from their first meeting in Dublin Castle last year and was brought throughout the country and involved employers, employees, State and private sector companies and people engaged in education and so on. They also produced a cost review study under the umbrella of NCPP.
Overall, it was a good gathering of small offices working individually and collectively to do a very good job. The former executive chairperson has set out a very ambitious programme for the next number of years which, if followed, will make this a very successful project.
Almost a year ago, NESF published a report on equality policies for older people. Is the Taoiseach aware it recommended that all Departments and State agencies in the wider public service should prepare and publish equality plans with time-tables for action mechanisms to track these plans and to publish an annual statement on the measures they have either adopted or propose to adopt in order to secure equality on all nine grounds, including age?
Is the Taoiseach also aware that NESF recommended that all Departments should undertake equality reviews and that the Equality Authority should devise the template by which the Departments could approach the task? Has this been done and, crucially, has the Department of the Taoiseach taken on a co-ordinating role in ensuring that measures to secure equality for our older citizens, in particular, are undertaken as recommended in the NESF report?
I am aware of the report and its recommendations. The co-ordinating role referred to by the Deputy is the responsibility of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely. I cannot answer for all Departments and agencies but I know many of them have implemented the recommendations, which is a good idea. Like many of the NESF's recommendations, they should be pursued.
I am sure many people in the NESC, NESF and the NCPP will be interested to know the progress of the National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 which is on Committee Stage. Does the Taoiseach have a timeframe in which this Bill will be passed and does he wish to see it passed? When does he see that coming about?
Is NESDO part of the Government's decentralisation plans? Given that it has represented the coming together of three bodies, does it not suggest there is sometimes a case for bringing bodies together rather than scattering them to the four corners of the country? In that contect, has the Taoiseach evaluated the thinking behind NESDO?
One of the main strands of the NCPP's work, as the Taoiseach mentioned in his reply, is the forum on the workplace of the future. In that context, will he outline the areas being considered to assist employees in adapting to competitive pressures? Does he take the point, made by many employees, that regardless of the fact that they are seen as the most productive in the EU, they are still under immense pressure for increased productivity while issues of child care, paternity leave and so forth are still far behind international standards? Will the Taoiseach indicate what the Government will do to respond to the identification of those problems? Does the increase in commuting time not give rise to a need to re-examine the national spatial strategy in order that the time might be reduced since it is greater here than in other countries?
I would like to see the Bill to which the Deputy referred passed whenever possible. However, it is not affecting the work of the organisations because they were set up and continue to work on a non-statutory basis in the interim, pending the enactment of the Bill.
Bringing the three bodies together made sense because they were located in separate offices and places and are small organisations comprising just 22 or 23 staff between them.
It made sense to bring them together. The Deputy is correct that it makes sense at times to bring small organisations together because they can share overheads, have better facilities and a better means of working. In this case, that proved to be cost-effective in that there were savings of more than 8% in the start-up year.
An enormous effort has been put into the Forum on the Workplace for the Future. For the past 12 months, the forum has been engaged in in-depth discussion, research and analysis on how workplaces operate, and how best they can adapt to competitive pressures and improve the delivery of services. It has also examined in an organised way the difficulties raised by the Deputy and the pressures under which people work to see if there is a way in which workers can be involved in decisions from start to finish. It is clear from the studies that this can be done successfully, especially where employers take account of needs, concerns and flexible time arrangements. Some of these arrangements in agreements are remarkable compared with what would have been the case ten years ago. People have changed their hours and structures to avoid peak traffic times.
On the issue of commuting time, I was in Carrick-on-Shannon recently where I met many who had left this city or worked in London and whose greatest pleasure and enjoyment as they left their house at 8.25 a.m. or 8.55 a.m. for their few minutes' drive to work was listening to reports on RTE of traffic congestion. That is a good argument for more of the public and private sector being located outside the city. The length of commuting times is a great shame, as is people having to leave their homes in rural areas permanently to come to cramped and costly accommodation in the city. It is not good for either city or country. It would be much better if we could convince more private sector companies to locate in the regions where there would be many benefits for staff. Some do so because they see the merits of it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the fibre of social partnership has been seriously damaged by the direction of Government tax policy, especially in the past two years? Where was the spirit of partnership in failing to index tax bands and in increasing stealth taxes which ate into the modest wage settlements which people received in the previous pay settlement? Where was the spirit of partnership in finding money for tax breaks for sports clinics when accident and emergency departments are in crisis and unable to cope? Where was the spirit of partnership in finding tax breaks for holiday homes when young couples in Dublin city find it impossible to meet the cost of housing?
Is it not time we set about building a new social partnership based on decent values, such as equality of opportunity, instead of the carefully choreographed activity where the Taoiseach, like a white knight, will supposedly rescue the social partnership pay negotiations from the brink of failure? Is it not time we got back to basic values and delivered to people the services they expect?
That was a general question. The Deputy will have seen the recent reports on tax rates in this country and, given our collective and cumulative tax rates, we are now one of the low tax countries of the OECD, not to mention the European Union. The social partnership negotiations are examining the areas referred to by the Deputy such as housing——
Looking and doing are very different.
They are also doing. The figures show a record number of houses being built, with twice the number of a few years ago. The lion's share of them are being bought by first-time buyers and our tax system takes account of that. It would be terrific if we could build houses much more cheaply.
Why is it that one can buy a house more cheaply in Florida? I looked at a brochure on property in Florida when I attended the G8 summit last week. I was also given information on what the workers from south Carolina were earning for the job compared with the rates paid in this country. They were working for about a quarter of the rate that Irish construction workers are paid. It is clear from surveys that the price of land is not always the issue. It would be good if prices were lower. The price of a block in this country is the same as it was 12 years ago but the cost of block-laying has increased by 1,900%. These are the difficulties and the issues. That is why other areas do it differently.
The tax money is going to holiday homes, not to first-time buyers.
Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.
The holiday homes scheme was of enormous benefit to communities that have little other than the summer season. It is clear that in parts of Donegal, Connemara and Kerry, local communities live on what they make between now and the first week in September. That is the reality.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the reality that only a third of new homes go to first-time buyers and that a significant report showed that to be the case and that Government housing policy is falling off the spectrum? Is he aware, for example, that a worker in private rented accommodation receives a total of €4 per week from the State to help with rent whereas a person either purchasing or living in a local authority home receives approximately €200 per week? Is that not gross discrimination that ought to be addressed?
Where is the sense of urgency from Government in addressing some of these issues? Where is the sense of urgency in sorting out the chaos in accident and emergency departments? Is it not the case that those involved in the social partnership process feel let down and betrayed that there is not a sense of urgency in delivering on the issues that should make partnership work and turn the wealth created into something that makes a difference to people's lives? That is what is missing and the electorate said as much in the past week.
I do not want to start answering questions on health, environment and housing. It is clear from all the recent surveys that the lion's share of new houses went to first-time buyers and the Deputy is, therefore, not correct. In the case of the top 10% of houses, namely, the most expensive, first-time buyers are not in that league.
To say that social partnership is not concerned about quality of life issues is not true. Most of Sustaining Progress has been based on improving services and introducing the reforms to allow this to happen. I could give a long answer to the Deputy on a number of issues and the urgency of the reform programmes in many areas. It can be seen that a major difference is being made in many areas that are being targeted. Waiting lists in some categories are almost eliminated and we have seen improvements in cardiac surgery and cancer services, although not in every area. Some regions do not receive equal treatment and people undoubtedly feel aggrieved about that. On the evidence of the cardiac surgery waiting lists of a few years ago, however, it is clear that enormous strides have been made. The same will happen as better facilities are built and opened and the service is improved.
We always hear about accident and emergency departments and I accept that they do not work too well, the reason being that people are in hospital for too long because no step-down facility is available. While that creates a problem, it does not take from the fact that the majority of people in hospital receive very good treatment, and we heard as much to this effect during the campaign. About 90% of the problem concerns accident and emergency departments and the fact that people are left lying on trolleys for two, three or four nights. That grates with the public, and rightly so, and is the issue with which we must deal. The reason they are in accident and emergency departments is that they cannot go home. There are no facilities or people to mind them at home so they have to get stand-down facilities. We have to address that issue.
I wish to refer once more to the NESF report on equality policies for older people. While the Taoiseach earlier acknowledged an awareness of the report and its recommendations, which I welcome, he indicated it was primarily a responsibility for the line Minister. However, my remarks related specifically to the Taoiseach's own Department so I wish to ask again if his Department is now taking on a co-ordinating role, or is it proposed that it should do so, to ensure that measures to secure equality for older citizens are undertaken as recommended by the NESF. What steps, if any, has the Taoiseach's Department taken to implement the recommendations in that Department? That is the specific matter I wish the Taoiseach to address. What he does will provide the lead for other Departments. Has he acted on the NESF report and, if so, will he be specific in outlining to the House exactly what has been done and what remains to be done?
I repeat that I do not have a section, unit or people in my Department to co-ordinate that matter. Therefore, it will not be co-ordinated from my Department, but from the Department that has the section, unit and personnel to make this happen. The section that can do that comes under the aegis of the Minister of State with responsibility for older people. I have neither the resources nor a unit to do it, so it would be meaningless to attach that responsibility to my Department. The best way to do it is through people who are working directly with the services in the relevant unit.
What is the Taoiseach's Department doing?
My Department has given over the responsibility for that area and does not have anybody involved in it. Therefore, there is no point in our trying to co-ordinate it because nobody would be doing it.
It is not only a question of co-ordination. What is the Taoiseach's Department doing? Nothing.
I am sorry Deputy Ó Caoláin, but we have moved on to Question No. 8 in the name of Deputy Enda Kenny. I call the Taoiseach.
On a point of order, there is very limited time left and these questions are of great importance. Perhaps it would be appropriate to defer them, or will we get a chance to address them properly?
It is a matter for the House. There are eight minutes remaining and my proposal is to take a question from each of the Members, breaking them into two groups of three questions each, and conclude it. However, it is a matter entirely for the House if it wishes to suspend Taoiseach's Questions. Does the Taoiseach want to proceed?
I will proceed.