Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:1 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the implementation of the revised programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46963/10]
View answerProgrammes for Government
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the renewed programme for Government. [48347/10]
View answer
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in respect of the implementation of those elements of the programme for Government for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48374/10]
View answerEnda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the agreed programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48389/10]
View answerEnda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the revised programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48402/10]
View answerOral answers (29 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
As the Deputies are aware, the core focus of the renewed programme is to stimulate sustainable economic recovery and job creation. It sets out the agreed areas of focus for each individual Minister whose duty it is to ensure that those commitments within their particular portfolios are implemented.
As I have stated on many occasions, we all have to adapt to changed economic circumstances. The international environment, while showing signs of recovery, is still fragile. Our focus is to stabilise our finances. Furthermore, we need to increase the competitiveness of the economy such that when the economic recovery takes place we are best positioned to take advantage of that recovery. The renewed programme for Government takes account of these realities and sets out mechanisms that will allow us to achieve these objectives.
The implementation of the renewed programme is an ongoing process which takes account of developing circumstances including the availability of resources. A progress report detailing the programme's implementation is the subject of ongoing evaluation and will be made available shortly.
Among the commitments in the programme for Government is a commitment that the Government will proceed with the proposal to hold a constitutional referendum on children's rights. I have had the opportunity to meet the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, and I do not intend to go into the details of that. It is not what this question is about. Given that we had all-party consensus and that we now have the Government's own proposed wording, is it the intention of the Taoiseach and the Government to hold a referendum on this new wording? Will the referendum be held in conjunction with the general election? Has the Taoiseach given his blessing to Deputy Barry Andrews's stated intent to have that referendum in the course of the Government's remaining time? If so, when will the referendum Bill be published?
On a separate matter, the last time we addressed the programme for Government in the Dáil, which was prior to the 2011 Budget Statement, I pointed out that, on education, the programme says, "Those with special needs will be safeguarded". I asked the Taoiseach at that time if he would rule out any further cuts to special needs assistance and other supports and if he would keep to the commitment contained in the programme for Government to, "continue to develop therapy services for children with special needs attending mainstream schools". I am sure Deputies of all political interests in the House know that, following a directive issued in December, special educational needs organisers, SENOs, are no longer in a position to appoint new special needs assistants, SNAs. In fact, the only power remaining to them is to cease SNA support for a specific child in need of special needs assistance in the classroom. Given the commitment in the programme for Government, the Taoiseach's own response before the 2011 budget and the fact that children who are, by SENO assessment, in need of special support are not getting it, will the Taoiseach, in the weeks remaining to him, ensure that this draconian diminution of support is reversed, in the interest of children who need this special intervention at a critical stage of their educational development?
As for the first matter, I indicated late last year that much advanced, detailed and good work has been done regarding a proposed wording for the children's referendum. As the Deputy noted, this was brought to the attention of the Cabinet and approval was given for the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, to speak to spokespersons from other parties in the House and then to proceed to publish a wording, subject to those discussions or on the basis of having those discussions at the same time or listening to what people have to say and getting their views on it. This issue has been raised constantly in this Chamber and much work has gone into it. I believe it to be a good body of work and those who have had the opportunity to study it regard it as such.
The question of when it will be taken is a matter yet for decision, consistent with the requirements for the holding of referendums. Consequently, no decision has been taken as yet for the holding of a referendum. However, I believe the work that has been done to date should be brought into the public domain and discussed with Opposition Members and the Government will make a decision. While the Government obviously will reserve its right to make a decision, it wishes to hear the views of others and this is the process in which the Minister of State is engaged at present.
In respect of the second matter, as the Deputy is aware all the budgets have been allocated for this year. Moreover, he is aware that we are in a tight situation with regard to expenditure and the expenditure ceilings must be respected. The Government has made every effort in the course of pre-budgetary discussions over many Cabinet meetings to protect to the greatest possible extent those in our society who are most vulnerable. The Government is very proud of the record it has achieved on the disability issue over many years and there has been a transformation in the last five to ten years in the provision of funding, structures, resources and personnel. There now are thousands of the special needs assistants mentioned by the Deputy whereas ten years ago, they numbered in the hundreds. Again, it is a question of being obliged to work within budgets. Although it is not possible to change that, it also is important that the SNA system both works with the best possible efficiency and meets the needs of those who require it. A very good job is being done, in the circumstances, in that regard. I simply contend that the allocation of resources has been made. It will be a continuing priority for the Government to seek to protect to the greatest possible extent those who are most vulnerable in our society. We must ensure this is achieved to the greatest possible extent. This task will be ongoing during the course of this financial year but it certainly is a sentiment that has been expressed by the Government to the agencies concerned.
In respect of the first matter, given that the Taoiseach has indicated that the Government has not yet made a decision, does he believe that within what presumably is a period of weeks that remains, there is a sufficient timeframe to accommodate the publication of the referendum Bill, the presumable appointment of a referendum commission and all the other elements, including the finance, to underpin a referendum campaign? Is this feasible or doable within the time that remains?
On the second matter regarding children in need of special needs assistance, particular cases have been brought to my attention in which the individual child is regarded as being, in the phrase used by the special educational needs organiser, SENO, involved, of the highest priority. However, there is not at present within the gift of the SENO the opportunity to appoint a special needs assistant as the aforementioned child undoubtedly requires. The situation is highly serious and I again use the opportunity, in the limited time that is open to me, to ask the Taoiseach to revisit this particular area because children will lose the chance to avail of essential supports in preparing for their current and future education prospects.
Finally, what of the section in the programme for Government entitled, Protecting the Family Home? I note that repossession orders have increased from 109 in 2007 to 311 in 2010.
Deputy, we really must move on.
I suggest that this is but the tip of the iceberg. What action can be taken to advance the measures in the Taoiseach's own programme for Government? I am citing from it directly. It refers to reduced interest rates, longer maturity dates and the rolling-up of outstanding interest. Are steps being taken to give effect to those stated objectives to address the difficulties families are facing in paying mortgages today? Is there any prospect that the Taoiseach will have something in place over the short period of time remaining for the Government?
On when the referendum will be held, I have to await the advice of the Minister of State concerned based on the discussions he has had in the past number of weeks with his colleagues in the House. When he reports back to Government very soon it will enable us to make a judgment as to the best way forward.
On the second matter, in Ireland, compared on a pro rata basis to other countries, thankfully there is a very small percentage of repossessions, many of which relate to hand-overs or the sub-prime market. I understand there are approximately 870,000 mainstream residential mortgages out of a total of 1.4 million homes in the country. The statutory code of conduct and the various measures which have been introduced were a result of the work completed by a committee that was appointed by the Government to determine how we could improve and extend grace periods for people in difficulty and find solutions based on people engaging directly with financial institutions.
It was decided they would operate and deal with those issues in a manner consistent with the code of practice. For many people it has been a practical way in which their circumstances can be factored into repayment scheduling, etc. It is an ongoing issue and a lot of work is being done by MABS and others. Various measures, such as mortgage interest subsidies, have been taken which have been helpful but the ideal situation is for people to return to repayment schedules consistent with the terms and conditions of their mortgages.
Some people find themselves, unfortunately, in understandable difficulties because of their circumstances. The way we have found to engage between the financial institutions and those who have mortgages in difficulty has proved to have practical effect and success.
The Taoiseach did not respond to my second point. Is there anything he can do?
The relevant Minister will have to take up some of the representations received in respect of individual cases. I hope ways and means will be found for those in need to be accommodated. Pursuing public service reform is about making sure that we release moneys, to the greatest extent possible, to the areas of the public service which require resourcing in addition to what is already being provided. We have made extensive efforts, despite the difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves and the need to reduce expenditure, to emphasise that we want such issues dealt with as sympathetically as possible.
Where there are problems we need to deal with them on an individual basis. The relevant Minister will give the Deputy a better overview as to the constraints of resources and the impact that is having.
When the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, announced in November that his party would withdraw from Government and a general election would be called by the end of January, he effectively made the programme for Government redundant. Following that announcement, was there any discussion between the two parties in Government to identify which provisions of the programme for Government would be completed and which would be allowed to lapse?
Prior to Christmas it was decided that having completed the budgetary process and introduced and enacted the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, a parliamentary schedule for this term, setting out the legislative priorities, would be issued. The Deputy will have a copy of that to hand. Those are the issues we want resolved and dealt with in this term.
Other parts of the programme are at various stages of implementation. Some are advanced, others are half way through and progress is slow on others. These are issues that will be taken up in due course, whatever the situation is later in the year. This may involve a continuation of policy initiatives, their modification or they may be discontinued. That is a matter for a decision in the future. In the meantime, we will produce a report shortly on the state of implementation of the programme for Government, which has been a revised programme since October 2009, in which we will be able to indicate the rate of progress made on a whole range of areas over the past three and a half years.
Will that report address the issue of appointments to State boards? The programme for Government was very clear that it was intended that legislation would be introduced to provide a new procedure for the making of appointments to State boards, which would include the advertising of the vacancies concerned. I note that over the Christmas recess the Government stuffed State boards and that approximately 90 appointments were made to them. These appointments do not appear to have been advertised. What is the position on that particular commitment in the programme for Government?
It is unlikely, because of the term the Government has lasted, that it will be possible to complete that aspect of the programme. I do not accept for one moment the pejorative term used by Deputy Gilmore with regard to the filling of State boards. He is a person who often comes into the House and speaks about the need for proper corporate governance and the need for boards to act effectively. We cannot have an effective oversight mechanism of a board if we do not have the board filled by the numbers set out under statute to be members of the board so as to give strategic direction to the board and hold management to account. We often discuss in this House issues of management and accountability in some of these agencies, which require the oversight of boards and board approval for major policy decisions taken. Therefore, I do not accept the pejorative used by the Deputy. Where vacancies arise, they are filled in the appropriate and proper way in line with practice. None has been brought to my personal attention, but many of them can be filled by ministerial remit. As the Deputy is aware, very few State board appointments come to Cabinet for appointment, although there are some that require Cabinet approval and some, by convention, are brought for Cabinet approval. In the main, many vacancies are for departmental agencies etc. and these are filled by the Ministers concerned. I have no reason to doubt the calibre of any of the appointments that have been made.
I came into office in an unusual situation in 1997 when the Deputy was a member of the previous Government. Then, in the Department of Health my predecessor sought to fill health board vacancies throughout the country when the vacancies did not arise during the tenure of that Government but during my tenure. I felt then that the old principle, nemo dat quod non habet, applied. In other words, one cannot give what one does not have. When I made the decision to retract those appointments, as they were not properly and appropriately provided for under the Acts, I was described in various pejorative terms by the Opposition at the time. I was indeed threatened publicly with legal action by two of those appointees, who were Ministers of State when they were being appointed to the health boards. As the Deputy is aware, the law at the time was that a Minister of State could not be appointed to a State board. That was done at a previous time, but perhaps the Deputy was busy doing other things. It is certainly not something that attracted public comment from the Deputy at the time. I dealt with the issue appropriately and never got the writs. One of the appointees in question was from the Deputy’s own party.
I deduce from the Taoiseach's response that we will not see the legislation the Government promised in the programme for Government to provide a new procedure for the making of State appointments. However, as I understand it from the Taoiseach's reply it will never see the light of day during the lifetime of this Government.
Why is legislation needed? Why after almost four years in office has this Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government not applied the principles set down in the programme for Government that vacancies on State boards would be advertised? The programme provides that vacancies will be advertised and applications invited. This would not have required legislation. The Government could have done that. Why then did it not do so, in particular given Fianna Fáil's unfortunate experience in 1997?
I was convinced that such a precedent could never be repeated by a Fianna Fáil-led Administration given the predilection of predecessors to do what they did. I am sure it was an oversight on their part. It may be as simple as their not having looked at the dates. I am sure it would not have attracted the criticism I received were it an oversight. It was certainly seen as a major——
The Taoiseach is dining out on it anyway.
It is a great one to throw back at Deputy Gilmore, given his indignation on this. Stones in glass houses come to mind when the Deputy raises questions like this. However, it is important for the Deputy to make his point. It is a fair point. I am of the view that in appointments to State boards one must appoint people with the required skill sets and who are capable of making a good contribution to the boards. That is the position in the majority of cases. We need to be careful to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the situation whereby people who would otherwise serve on boards — these are often non-executive positions — shy away from doing so because they are the centre of political controversy, which can be legitimate and valid in many cases usually on a management basis. While boards are often justifiably brought into the equation they should not always be brought into it. We should look at the performance of each board and, if there is any suggestion of incompetence in terms of the operation of the board, people can bring the matter to the attention of the House which will debate the origin of the problem.
During my time as Minister and Taoiseach — I am not as Taoiseach involved in as many boards as would have been the case when I was a line Minister — I have found that, if not without exception, in the vast majority of cases those who were appointed to State boards took up such positions out of a sense of public service, diligence in their work or wanting to make a contribution. Despite the cynical view to the contrary, I do not regard political affiliation as being the axiomatic criterion for appointment to State boards. I reappointed many who were appointed to boards by predecessors from other political parties, based on their performance, competence and contribution. The record will show that.
As regards the particular point made by the Deputy, if it is criticism that is being made of us then fair enough it is a valid criticism to make. It is an issue that can and should be addressed in a non-contentious manner in the future, if not already addressed by us.
I note the Taoiseach's response to the question on the children's referendum. The all-party Oireachtas committee on this matter did great work, which has been accepted across the board. However, while this matter has not been much of a priority in the recent past it now appears to have surfaced again as a real priority. Perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate the reason for the changes introduced by the Attorney General, which from a number of points of view, appear to render meaningless the intended impact, effect and consequence of the referendum. In view of the broad range of discussion that will be again required, does the Taoiseach agree it would not be practical, in the context of those discussions, the preparation of legislation and the seriously held views in regard to the ineffectiveness of what is now being proposed, to hold the referendum on the date it is proposed to hold the general election?
An assessment has to be made by Government on that matter. Good work was done by the all-party committee and a great deal of time was spent on it. The question of children's rights is a complex area and how that plays into the constitutional rights framework is an important factor, which we need to address in an appropriate way. The Cabinet has not yet made a decision on when and how to proceed. The work that has been done was brought to the attention of spokespersons and my understanding was people may not have given their full agreement immediately to it. People recognise the quality of the work and we, as a Government, must decide whether we wish to proceed or not.
I cannot say more than that until the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, comes back to the Cabinet as a result of the discussion he is having. This issue was raised constantly and charges were made that no work was being done on it and there was prevarication. That is not correct and the quality of the work that has been produced is testimony to the fact that the Government has to work interdepartmentally on this matter, because of the various issues that arise, and then come forward with what I believe will be a very coherent piece of work. I cannot comment further until the Cabinet discusses the matter beyond where it was when we last discussed it.
Does the Taoiseach accept that because of the impact and the intended consequences for children and children's rights, the proposed wording has been altered significantly by the change proposed by the Attorney General to the Cabinet? Are there specific reasons for that because it appears to have been watered down significantly?
Basically it is a question of ensuring that there are not unintended effects and that one brings forward a proposal that is appropriate and meets the requirements of the situation. The merits of the proposal cannot be discussed in the House until we have a structured debate on it and party spokespersons who have studied the matter in great detail can discuss it some time. Whether it is introduced as a Bill or as part of another element of the legislative process is a matter for decision. However, we, for the reasons outlined verbally by the Minister of State to Opposition spokespersons, have indicated what we believe to be the best way forward in all circumstances, taking into account all the work that has been done but recognising that the Government has to examine any proposals from the Oireachtas committee. As laudable as that work has been, the unintended effects or impacts it may have on certain areas have to be taken into account, explained and the Government must come back with a proposal and outline the rationale behind it. Members of the committee have been grappling with this complex issue, which needed careful and due consideration, for some time. The body of work is meritorious in itself.
We have had the Croke Park agreement since last November. It is critical as part of the programme for Government in respect of public service workers who have agreed its terms. It is coming across clearly from public sector workers that there does not seem to be a sense of urgency to implement what has been agreed. For instance, we have not had a resolution to the teachers' contract or local government restructuring. There is a range of serious issues in respect of which there does not seem to have been much activity. A review is to be held in March of this year. Is the Taoiseach satisfied at the rate of progress to achieve what has already been agreed in the context of the Croke Park agreement and that it is making the progress for which both he and the Government signed on?
A lot of progress is being made based on the action plans that have been drafted. The Croke Park agreement is about delivering change at ground level in ways which will vary from place to place depending on the skill sets, mix of skills and numbers and all the rest of it that goes with the activity in which they are engaged. It is not a uniform, top-down approach. It is about working at management level with union representatives to make the changes that are necessary. The channels of revenue that are coming from the budget indicate the amount of money we have to deal with the issue.
The Croke Park agreement gives the flexibility to provide solutions which are not constrained by prior agreements or arrangements. In other words, it is about an engagement on the ground to do that. It is being proceeded with. I would love to see the process completed asap but we all know there are issues that have to be resolved. There are arrangements for quick referral upwards for resolution through arbitration of general issues that arise that are holding back any change process being implemented. For example, the Deputy will have seen the significant changes that have taken place on re-rostering of the Garda Síochána. That has been a major, long-term IR issue. Other changes involve staffing levels for new prisons and delivery levels in accident and emergency units in hospitals. Negotiations are ongoing on new contracts for teachers.
In the public service a new pension scheme for new entrants will be introduced. In the Civil Service there is agreement on a modern system for the management of sick leave designed to achieve a significant reduction in sickness absence rates. Some clearly inefficient practices on credited time and attendance patterns are being eliminated. Hundreds of staff have been moved from other areas of the Civil Service to social welfare offices to cope with increased demands. Staff have been redeployed to help process redundancy payments more speedily. More than 1,000 community welfare officers have moved from the HSE to the Department of Social Protection with effect from 1 January. That was a long-standing IR problem for years. That is a serious achievement in respect of that issue which many Members are aware has been a bugbear for many years. It is a significant move because it is cross-sectoral with staff moving from the HSE to the Civil Service. The Prison Service has opened new accommodation for prisoners at Wheatfield Prison and for female prisoners in Limerick Prison. Those new blocks have been opened with a new, more efficient staffing model based on the principle set out in the agreement. In the Garda Síochána revised rosters have been agreed in the specialised detective units and the traffic corps and to allow gardaí involved to be deployed more efficiently to meet demands for their services.
That is an indication of the sort of things that are happening throughout the various parts of the service whether in the HSE transferring to the Civil Service or within the Civil Service itself in the Departments of Justice and Law Reform and Education and Skills where we are seeking to make headway. The vast majority of the operational budget for the Department of Education and Skills is for wages and pensions. One is talking about 20% of the total budget in which one can try to make some progress. One can change work practices and get some improvements. This will be an ongoing process of change. The issue is that when management requirements arise in order to move things on because of the resources that are available, the Croke Park agreement provides the umbrella framework, if one likes, in which people can engage and sort out the problem quickly rather than each individual problem creating an IR problem that goes back into the general IR system through the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission.
It is a very significant development, one that has the potential to bring transformational change in the public service delivery. It is evident that it does involve a cultural change as well. With good leadership from both sides in the public service very important changes that have long-term financial and economic benefits and deliver better public services in a more customer-oriented way is available to us if we continue to support and encourage the implementation of the Croke Park agreement as quickly as possible.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply I wish to ask him a further question in that regard. The Taoiseach is well aware of the IMF-EU agreement. The actions proposed at the end of quarter 3 for 2011——
What agreement?
The IMF-EU agreement. It states clearly that in the event of potential shortfalls in projected savings arising from administrative efficiencies or public service numbers reductions, the Government will consider an appropriate adjustment, including adjustment to the overall public service wage bill. In the context of that element of the quarter 3 section of the agreement, what is meant by an "appropriate adjustment" to the overall public service wage bill? Does this mean that in the event that the review does not measure up in terms of the Croke Park agreement the Government must either re-open the agreement in respect of the numbers employed by the public service or that it would take a unilateral decision to have further wage cuts? The sentence refers to an "appropriate adjustment, including to the overall public service wage bill". If the review is not sufficient, what is the underlying decision of the Government? Is it to re-open the agreement in respect of the overall numbers? Is it to take a further slice off further public salaries?
Our position on the Croke Park agreement has not changed and we are keen to see its accelerated implementation. It is on the basis of getting the changes envisaged by the full implementation of the agreement that we have been able to give our commitments. Our commitments are given in the context of full implementation. In the absence of full implementation, the ability of the Government to fulfil its side of the bargain is more difficult. The scale of change in a system of more than 300,000 people requires agreement and leadership at all levels. This is the significance of the agreement. It is based on shared principles and specific, agreed commitments.
People seem to have forgotten that the Croke Park deal was negotiated against a background of escalating industrial action and the agreement put an end to that. By accepting the Croke Park agreement, public servants have accepted the imposition of a pension levy and pay cuts resulting in an average, combined reduction of 14% in pay. It has resulted in an estimated annual pay saving of €1.8 billion. The agreement provides for an effective freeze in pay up to 2014.
There has already been a reduction of approximately 12,000 in public service numbers since the end of 2008. In line with the national recovery plan, there will be an overall reduction of almost 25,000 by the end of 2014 from the end of 2008 base level. In contrast with the experience in other countries, where less severe reform measures have been pursued, there has been no industrial unrest. We have managed service continuity, which is especially important to the most vulnerable in our society. The reduced numbers mean there has been increased productivity throughout the public service as well as a reduction in the public service pay bill. Therefore, we are getting more work for less money and this will continue. Changes in work practices will also lead to reductions in the cost of overtime and other forms of variable pay. Unions have agreed that services can be restructured, work locations can change and services to the public can be offered over longer periods. New technology will be employed to deliver services in better ways to the public. Staff may be redeployed to the areas where they are most needed. As we identify areas of lower priority and reduced demand we can redeploy people smoothly to new and higher priority tasks within their organisations, into other organisations and other parts of the public service.
Given our serious financial situation we now have fewer organisations, fewer people, who are paid less and whose pension arrangements are changing. This has been achieved by agreement without major industrial disputes which would have damaged our reputation or impacted on the most vulnerable. There is a promise of more change to come in terms of a further reduction in numbers and greater flexibility, redeployment and substantial new work practices. The public service unions accept that the guarantees the Government has given in respect of avoiding further pay reductions and compulsory redundances are dependent on full co-operation and flexibility being shown across the board.
That is a fair summary and it is important to note the principle that public service workers want this agreement implemented. In the context of what the Taoiseach said about the best use of staff, Deputy O'Mahony has reminded me that there are 160 staff in the Garda Training College in Templemore but no students. I am sure this is a situation the Taoiseach would not like to see continue. Is there another coterie of trainees to be sent to the college soon so that the staff can be employed in full fashion?
I am not aware of the specifics in particular issues. Action plans are in place in the Department of Justice and Law Reform and the Garda Síochána to deal with the issue raised by Deputy Kenny. I will bring it to the attention of the various authorities, which must be aware of it, to see what plans are in place in the event of reduced recruitment in the future and how the personnel employed in the college in different times can be redeployed to other duties, if that is what is intended and suggested.