Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during November 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37777/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Freedom of Information.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests processed by his Department during 2005; the number which have been acceded to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39751/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during the months of November and December 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40276/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of requests to his Department which have been refused under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 since January 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter [1127/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests to his office in 2005; the number of fees collected in respect of these freedom of information requests in 2005; the way in which these figures compare to 2003 and 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1750/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the statistics regarding freedom of information requests received in my Department.
In 2005, a total of €780 was collected in fees in respect of 52 applications. A further €225 was collected in respect of internal review fees for three applications and €35 was collected for search and retrieval fees in respect of one application. The Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003 established an independent process for consideration of freedom of information requests. I have no role in how the provisions of the Acts are applied in specific instances. While I am pleased to provide general statistical information about the operation of freedom of information in my Department, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the outcome of specific requests or to answer questions about how the provisions were applied in any specific area. To do so would undermine the independence of decision makers and may be prejudicial to the conduct of the appeals processes provided for in the Acts.
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
Feb |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Mar |
30 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
May |
11 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
|
June |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
July |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
Aug |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Sept |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Nov |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Feb |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
Mar |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
April |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
May |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
June |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
July |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aug |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sept |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nov |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
Feb |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Mar |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
April |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
May |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
June |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|||
|
July |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|||
|
Aug |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Sept |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Oct |
16 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
Nov |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|||
|
Dec |
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Total |
61 |
22 |
18 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
The Department of the Taoiseach must, like any other Department, be subject to various inspections, including those investigations by the Health and Safety Authority, if necessary. Why did the Information Commissioner report that a member of the public had had to let her know that the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 had been changed? Why is the Taoiseach's Department excluded from any inspection or investigation by the Health and Safety Authority that might be warranted? I understand that the Information Commissioner is to highlight that all new legislation apparently includes growing numbers of non-disclosure provisions that will affect the Department of the Taoiseach among others. That is neither transparent, progressive nor in keeping with the stated Government aim of being open and accountable in all its affairs. Regarding those three elements of change——
Questions on the legislation should be addressed to the Minister for Finance.
I know that.
The questions referred specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I understand that, but I am asking the Taoiseach whether he was aware that the Freedom of Information Act 1997 had been changed to exclude Health and Safety Authority investigations in his Department. Why did a member of the public have to tell the Information Commissioner that? Is the Taoiseach happy that there now appears to be evidence of a growing number of non-disclosure provisions in legislation? That is not good.
To the best of my knowledge, it is the other way around. I do not know whether the change has yet occurred, but another long list of bodies was to be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1997. Regarding health and safety issues, I am not aware of any change. Whatever was the position remains such. The Health and Safety Authority, if it was ever on the list, remains so. It has not been removed from it. I will check for the Deputy regarding my Department, but I am certainly not aware of any change. For example, if someone tabled a question on health and safety issues in my Department, I cannot understand why it might go unanswered.
The Information Commissioner said in that regard that the circumstances through which her office had become aware of the amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 were highly unsatisfactory.
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
Yes, and so does this.
I suggest the Deputy submit his question to the Minister for Finance.
This refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach which, like all the others, is now excluded by changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1997 from Health and Safety Authority investigations. That was not brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner but, according to her comments, made known to her by a member of the public. That is not good enough, and she also mentions an increasing number of non-disclosure provisions. While the Taoiseach refers to the growing list of bodies included in the Act, the Information Commissioner refers to a significant number outside its remit, including the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland, the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority——
The question refers specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.
——the National Treasury Management Agency and the State Claims Agency.
The question should be raised with the Minister for Finance.
There are also 33 vocational education committees. As with the Department of the Taoiseach, why is it taking so long for those to be rolled out?
It does not arise from these questions, and the Deputy knows that.
With due respect, the Department of the Taoiseach is now excluded from Health and Safety Authority investigations. The Act was changed.
That question has already been raised and dealt with.
Yes, but it has not been answered. I have drawn to the Taoiseach's attention the fact that the Information Commissioner herself has said that this was changed without her knowledge.
I ask the Deputy to raise the matter with the Minister for Finance.
It is an important element of Government competence and transparency.
That is why it should be dealt with properly.
Yes, but it affects the Department of the Taoiseach. I am asking him a question, and the Ceann Comhairle is trying to rule me out of order.
Deputy——
The Ceann Comhairle is doing his damnedest to rule me out of order.
I am trying to rule the Deputy out of order because he knows that questions on the Freedom of Information Act 1997 are a matter for the Minister for Finance. This question deals specifically with the Department of the Taoiseach.
Yes, and my question is if the Act has been changed to exclude the Department of the Taoiseach from Health and Safety Authority investigations without the Commissioner's knowledge, the change later being brought to her attention by a member of the public.
The Deputy has already raised that question. I call the Taoiseach on the question relating to his Department.
The Information Commissioner has said that this was a most unsatisfactory way to proceed with business.
As I said, I will check for the Deputy whether there has been any change in processing health and safety queries from the inception of Act. I do not believe that there has been. If someone asked regarding health and safety in my Department, I cannot imagine why he or she should be refused the information. My reply to the next question will contain information on what is covered by health and safety issues in the Disability Act. I do not understand there is any secret about that or that it would not come within the normal issues of security or court matters or any of the matters that are excluded from the Act. I will check for the Deputy on whether there has been any change but I do not think there has been.
I thank the Taoiseach.
Does the Taoiseach recall that during the recess it was reported that requests made to his Department under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the use of Shannon Airport by the US military and related matters, were refused? Will the Taoiseach advise if such a request or requests were refused and if they were refused under section 24 of the Act? Will the Taoiseach agree that section 24 allows for refusal of information if a head of a Department believes access to the information could adversely affect the security of the State, the defence of the State, international relations or matters pertaining to the Six Counties area of our country? Under which of these headings did the refusals fall and did any of them relate to the Six Counties? Does the Taoiseach agree with the Information Commissioner that the FOI law has become too restrictive and that it is very much against the public interest that information sought on projects involving major public expenditure — of which there are several examples——
That is a question for the Minister for Finance.
This question is in the context of the Information Commissioner's commentary. I am merely asking a question about the Taoiseach's position on this matter and whether he shares the view. I was just giving examples of matters relating to public spending.
I ask the Deputy to deal with the questions before the House.
I have already asked the Taoiseach a number of questions. With regard to the comments by the Information Commissioner, I ask whether the Taoiseach has any view regarding the Information Commissioner's commentary, particularly regarding matters of major public expenditure.
The Information Commissioner produces an annual report which is examined in detail by the Department of Finance and by an interdepartmental group. I am not involved in the process.
The Deputy asked a question concerning section 24 of the Act which provides protection for records whose disclosure would reasonably be expected to damage the security of the State, defence of the State, international relations and matters relating to Northern Ireland. The security of the State would have been the reason such requests were disallowed.
The Department of the Taoiseach in common with every other Department imposes fees for requests under the freedom of information legislation. Is the Taoiseach aware the European Commission would regard Ireland as being out of line on that matter? I refer to fees of €15, €75 and a fee of €150 if the matter is appealed to the Information Commissioner under section 7 of the Act. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that a decrease of 32% over the 2003 figures for requests under FOI is a healthy sign?
I prefer the Deputy to deal with the questions before the House.
I am referring to the freedom of information legislation which is the subject of these questions.
The fees are a matter for the Minister for Finance.
I am asking for the Taoiseach's opinion on the matter because it applies to his Department. Is the Taoiseach minded to extend the number of bodies subject to the freedom of information legislation following the meeting of the committee on 15 February, considering that 150 bodies are excluded from the freedom of information legislation? Does that not give further credence to the belief that there is a culture of secrecy in Government?
I have raised the issue of fees before and we have examined the matter in other jurisdictions. There is a range of fees in other jurisdictions, particularly for appeals. If it concerns a personal matter there is no fee here, otherwise a fee of €15 applies, which is a modest sum. It is estimated that the average administrative cost of processing an application is €425, so the fee is small by comparison. I do not think it has anything to do with the early flow of requests in the first case. With regard to an appeal, while a preliminary judgment is given, a person can withdraw right up to that stage and get the fee back. It is only if it goes all the way to a final appeal, which is not usually much different from the preliminary one, that the fee is payable. Therefore, I do not think the fee is excessive.
Following my earlier questioning, the Taoiseach acknowledged that at least one question was refused by his Department under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act. Will he advise us how many questions have been refused over the 12 month period from January to December 2005 under section 24 of that Act? Will the Taoiseach advise us also in what way the security of the State would be compromised by the release of the information sought? Is the Taoiseach's answer not tantamount to an admission on his part that the very fact that the US military continues to use the Shannon Airport facility is, in fact, the compromise of the security of the State? As a result of the questioning and further revelations about Shannon Airport, will the Taoiseach indicate whether he is re-thinking that arrangement?
The Deputy has misunderstood the Act. As I said in my earlier reply, I have no role in the processing of individual applications. I am not consulted on applications that come to my Department, nor am I consulted on replies that emanate from it. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on any individual cases or on specific matters.
The Taoiseach is the head of his Department.
No, I have no——
These are questions about his Department.
They are not. As political head of a Department I have no role whatsoever. The whole purpose and objective of the Freedom of Information Act is that I am neither consulted on what comes in, nor am I consulted on what goes out. That is the way it has been since 1998.
The Taoiseach is accountable to this House concerning valid and legitimate questions.
Ceist a sé. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
It is a smoke screening of everything.
Please allow Deputy Rabbitte to contribute.
The Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny about the Information Commissioner's remark that she had been taken by surprise by the exclusion of Health and Safety Authority investigations from the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, is unclear to me. Is the Taoiseach saying that is not the case? This is an important question and I am posing it in the context of, for example, the suggestion by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, that the Health and Safety Authority might take over the role of invigilating standards in industry generally, which is currently done in a more amorphous way by labour inspectors. In that way, they might work to a single authority, rather than creating a new authority. In those circumstances, the exclusion of health and safety investigations from the terms of the freedom of information legislation would not make any sense. The Taoiseach should take this opportunity to clarify the matter. Is he saying the Information Commissioner is wrong and that these matters are not excluded, or is he querying some nuance of that, which I do not understand?
I am not aware of any change in how health and safety issues have been dealt with. Whatever way they were dealt with in the first place, I understand they are dealt with in the same manner now. I am not aware of what was in the 1997 Act regarding health and safety but if a freedom of information question was asked regarding health and safety, to do with lifts or stairs, or other related disability issues, I cannot understand why that information would not be given by my Department. I am aware of no change in how queries regarding the Health and Safety Act are dealt with.
There must be a note on the file. Otherwise, what was the Information Commissioner talking about when she made her remarks?
There is absolutely nothing on the file. However, as I said to Deputy Kenny, I will check to see whether there has been a change, but certainly I am not aware of any change in regard to health and safety issues.
Disability Act 2005.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Disability Act 2005 within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38708/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made with regard to the implementation of the Disability Act 2005 within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40407/05]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the way in which the Disability Act 2005 has been implemented within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2324/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Disability Act 2005 in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2977/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.
My Department is fully committed to ensuring that the spirit and the letter of this legislation are honoured in the way the Department provides its services. We have for many years been conscious of our duty to ensure access to our buildings and services by people with disabilities. At the time of the adaptation of the building for the Department in the early 1990s, many facilities were provided, which have subsequently been improved upon, and we will continue to review facilities and upgrade them as necessary.
To fulfil our obligations under the Disability Act 2005, my Department is establishing an implementation monitoring committee, as a sub-committee of the Department's partnership committee. The monitoring committee will give impetus to progressing disability issues in the Department, with particular emphasis on ensuring that the range of services provided by the Department is accessible to people with disabilities and on engaging staff of the Department actively in the process. The committee will report annually to the National Disability Authority and to me as head of the Department on compliance with the 3% target of the employment of people with disabilities. The percentage of staff with disabilities employed in my Department currently is 3.64%.
The new monitoring committee will review arrangements for providing information to members of the public with disabilities and will establish procedures and set timescales for the provision of information. We will explore possibilities and demand for communications in accessible formats, including use of sign language, braille, audiotapes or any other appropriate method.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The Disability Act provides for sectoral plans to be drawn up by a number of Departments. Does the Taoiseach's Department have an overarching responsibility with regard to the drawing up of these plans and an oversight role with regard to their implementation?
Does the Taoiseach recall that the Act states that the Minister for Finance may, by order, specify compliance targets relating to the recruitment and employment of persons with disabilities in public bodies, the members of whose staff are civil servants, and the public bodies accountable to the relevant Minister? Has any such order been made with regard to the Taoiseach's Department?
Given the minimum requirement under the Act for levels of employment of people with disabilities, are higher targets set? I am interested to know the detail with regard to the Taoiseach's Department is 3%. Will the Taoiseach advise us if that minimum target set out in the Act has been achieved in his Department or have higher targets been set and agreed and, if so, have they been reached? How does his Department compare with other Departments in that regard?
My Department does not have an overarching role with regard to the Disability Act. My Department is one of the Departments which tries to implement aspects of the Act — every Department has been given responsibilities under the Act. My Department was not one of the sectoral areas. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, works on this issue with the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Education and Science and a number of other Departments.
The monitoring committee in my Department is made up of the key people in the Department, including the heads of the IT unit, the personnel office and employment assistance officers, and an access officer. They have responsibilities under the Act and have been given dates for implementation of the various sections of the Act, a number of which have already been put in place.
We established a committee at the end of last year as part of the partnership process. It reports to the departmental partnership committee and will approve a report on compliance under the Act by each June, by which time the monitoring committee of each Department must report. It also reports to me and the Cabinet committee on social inclusion on compliance with the Act. There are a number of checks and balances to ensure the Act is complied with. The agencies under my responsibility are also involved.
The level of employment of people with disabilities in my Department is 3.64%. We make regular returns to the equality division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the 3% target, which happens a number of times per year. We continue to review progress of the target and introduce positive action measures as necessary to try to increase that figure. Under the new Act, the monitoring committee must establish a reporting system to monitor our actions and information on the 3% target and what we are doing to try to achieve and improve on it.
The Central Statistics Office has a figure of 4.39% of staff with disabilities, the State Solicitor's office is at 3.36%, the Law Reform Commission figure is at 4.45% and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Attorney General's figures are at 2.3% and 2.59%, respectively, mainly because most of their staff is composed of barristers and solicitors and these figures are based on the proportion of people with disabilities in those professions. The National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, which is a small agency, has no such persons at the moment. It is a small area but NESDO is committed to the figure.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what constitutes the types of disability he referred to when he mentioned 3.64%? For example, is someone with asthma or tennis elbow regarded as qualifying under that percentage? Will he indicate how many people in that figure are blind or wheelchair users? Can his Department facilitate guide dog users? I wish to get a picture of how that 3.64% is broken down.
Given that the Disability Act 2005 states that there is an obligation to be proactive in employing people with disabilities, will the Taoiseach say how his Department has demonstrated this approach? Last October, President McAleese launched an excellence in accessibility award. Is the Taoiseach's Department in the running and would he regard himself as having a Department that qualifies for such an award?
Does the Taoiseach believe the wording of the Disability Act 2005 needs some reform?
That does not apply.
I do not want to stray. Before the Ceann Comhairle cuts me off, the Act states "as is practical having regard to its resources". Is this an impediment given that it does not have the strength of requirement that might otherwise be the case?
The personnel of my Department continuously try to be helpful in assisting and recruiting people with disabilities. Whenever they get the opportunity they try to be helpful in terms of mobility within the Department and its accessibility for people with disabilities.
The definition is set out in the 2005 Act:
"[D]isability" in relation to a person means a substantial restriction in the capacity of the person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment.
The code of practice under which the Civil Service works states that people with disabilities refers to those with a physical, sensory or psychological impairment that may have a tangible impact on their functional capability to do a particular job or an impact on their ability to function in a particular physical environment, or lead to discrimination in obtaining or keeping employment of a kind for which they would otherwise be suited. That code is in place across the Civil Service.
Regarding the national disability strategy and related legislation, resources are not an issue. We must now work on targets that have been set to implement key issues, including sectoral plans in the key Departments. My Department is not one of the line Departments in the sectoral plan but it has several other commitments under the Act, for which there are fixed dates. A fixed monitoring committee examines these commitments and there is a fixed process for reporting on them. Resources are being provided to make the necessary implementation possible and to ensure everyone complies with this.
The Taoiseach led the presentation of this Bill, with the Tánaiste and five other Ministers, when it was published in 2004. He correctly stated it was a key component of the Government's disability strategy and that it had the capacity to deliver world class services for the disabled. Without being political, the problem is that the strategy is dispensed between seven Departments and no Minister or Department has overall responsibility or accountability. Will the Taoiseach consider this? If seven Departments are dealing with something as important and comprehensive as this strategy, there will be no real sense of ownership.
Disability covers several areas. It is mainly dealt with by the Department of Health and Children, but also Social and Family Affairs; Transport; the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Communications, Marine and Natural Resources; and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The main group working on the national disability strategy comprises the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, with officials from Departments and agencies. This group remains the monitor of the strategy. Each Department must implement its own section of the strategy.
In my Department there is a monitoring committee and an access office and these fit into the overall partnership process. By certain dates one must report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on various measures. The strategy is being co-ordinated but each Department must play its part. Dates have been set for implementation. There is co-ordination even though there can never be enough co-ordination when the strategy runs across so many Departments and agencies. There is always a difficulty in that regard but the structure exists and the important point is that people adhere to this.
Each part should be implemented and people should not wait for a line Department to pressurise them on this point. This is a good cause and it is in everybody's interests to have a disability strategy properly implemented. While various bodies must report to one Department, they should not wait to be ordered to do so.
The Taoiseach read the definition of disability in the legislation, with which I am familiar, but my question sought more specific information. Will the Taoiseach supply figures on the number of people in his Department who are, for example, blind or wheelchair users? A sensory disability is a wide-ranging definition. Someone who requires spectacles could be regarded as having a sensory disability. This definition is as wide as it is long and I would like the Taoiseach to be more specific so we can see the level of interaction with people with disabilities.
The people who come within the disability category under the Civil Service code have quite a considerable impairment. Not just anyone is put into that category, as the Deputy knows. I can provide him with the breakdown in my Department of the various ailments, without giving individual details. I believe I have given that information previously.
The Taoiseach advised us that 3.64% was the figure within his Department. Is it a case of the Department having exceeded the base rate of 3% or has a higher target been set which the Department aspires to achieve?
My Department does not have another target. However, it will take any opportunity to increase the amount. The figure of 3% has been in place for some considerable time. As the number of staff in Departments increases, it is more difficult to achieve that 3%. Departments always try to maintain that figure, and increase it where necessary. People move between Departments through promotions and transfers. The first priority is to remain above the target figure. The Department does not believe it should stop because it has more than 3% and it always attempts to improve on it. Some sections within the Department have more than 4%.
Social Partnership.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38710/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39747/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:12 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the national implementation body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39750/05]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the proposed work of the National Economic and Social Council during 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39763/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the next quarterly meeting of the social partners under the Sustaining Progress agreement will be held; the agenda of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40403/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress on his contacts with the social partners regarding the possibility of a new national agreement to replace Sustaining Progress; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40404/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with representatives of the trade union movement on 4 January 2006; if further meetings are planned; if he expects negotiations on a possible new national agreement to open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1060/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the position on the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1235/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:18 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his 4 January 2006 talks with trade union leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1236/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:19 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the social partners. [1868/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1870/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:21 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2325/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:22 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3205/06]
Phil Hogan
Ceist:23 Mr. Hogan asked the Taoiseach the likelihood of a deal with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4063/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 23, inclusive, together.
As the House is aware, I met a delegation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 4 January 2006. The meeting was positive and it was agreed that there would be further engagement at official level with a view to finalising a structure on a possible talks process over the following days. Subsequently, the Secretary General of my Department wrote to IBEC, CIF and ICTU outlining possible arrangements for the conduct of any new round of talks on a successor agreement to Sustaining Progress, in particular around the handling of issues regarding employment standards. It was proposed that a multi-stranded approach would be taken to the conduct of the negotiations and that they would commence with an early plenary meeting between the Government and the four pillars of social partnership to launch the negotiations formally.
In respect of pay and workplace matters, it was proposed that the process of negotiation would reflect the NIB statement of 4 December which recognised the need for urgent engagement on employment standards, displacement, inspection and enforcement, the protection of vulnerable workers from overseas, and related issues raised by congress. This will therefore constitute the first strand of these negotiations. The Government recognises that it is the congress position that significant progress will be made in this first strand regarding employment standards before any substantial engagement takes place around core pay issues. It is proposed that talks with the four pillars on the other strands will commence simultaneously with the employment related strand. Furthermore, as in previous negotiations, another strand of talks around public service modernisation will also be established.
I am pleased to inform the House that, following the vote in favour of entering negotiations by the SIPTU special delegate conference on 31 January and the decision by the executive council of ICTU on 1 February to accept formally my invitation to enter talks on a new national agreement, I formally launched the negotiations at the plenary meeting of the social partners in Dublin Castle on 2 February.
The plenary meeting, which was also attended by my colleagues the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with responsibility for labour affairs provided an opportunity for the Government to set out its priorities for a new agreement and also to hear initial opening statements from the social partners on their priorities for a new agreement. Following on from this, a series of bilateral meetings has got under way. As with previous agreements, the proceedings are subject to normal confidentiality arrangements to protect the negotiating positions of all.
The Government recognises that there are many challenges to be faced in any talks on a new agreement, not least in determining how the area of employment standards should be protected. We believe, however, that the concerns of the social partners on this topic, as on other issues, can best be addressed through a new partnership framework. Social partnership has a proven track record of problem solving, resulting in the radical transformation of our economic and social fortunes since 1987. We believe that with goodwill and determination on all sides, we can negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome which will deliver further economic and social progress, building on the strong foundations we have already put in place.
The national implementation body, which includes employer and union representatives, operates under the chairmanship of my Department. Its purpose is to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions of Sustaining Progress. The body met on a number of occasions over recent months to assist in the resolution of industrial relations disputes in both the public and private sectors. In particular, it played a key role in resolving the difficult disputes at An Post and Irish Ferries towards the end of last year. Meetings of the body also provide opportunities for informal discussion of some of the broader issues relating to the social partnership process and the industrial relations climate generally. The body will continue to meet as necessary to this end.
In December last, the National Economic and Social Council published its three yearly strategic overview of Irish economic and social policy entitled NESC Strategy 2006: People, Productivity and Purpose. The strategy report, as its predecessors did, provides a guiding vision for the coming years for economic and social development in the country and, more immediately, the framework within which the talks will take place.
In the coming months, other studies will include completion of the study on migration policy, which is well advanced. In 2006, NESC will also complete a report on the Lisbon strategy, focusing on the open method of co-ordination. Further studies nearing completion include a study on child poverty and child income supports that will examine the possibility of merging child benefit allowance and family income supplement.
During 2006, the council will consider how best to address other items in its current work programme, including taxation policy and competition and regulation in networked sectors. It will also work on its first periodic social report and a significant NESC contribution to a knowledge society foresight exercise.
The reconstituted NESF held its inaugural meeting on 26 May 2004 in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham at which the work programme for the coming term up to 2006 was discussed, as well as the appropriate structures and working arrangements in the context of the work programme. Early childhood care and education, care for older people and creating a more inclusive labour market were subsequently selected as priority topics. The report on early childhood care and education was published in September last and the reports on care for older people and creating a more inclusive labour market were published recently and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Cultural citizenship and the delivery of public services have been identified for inclusion in the second phase of the work programme. Preliminary work has been undertaken on both these topics and projects in these areas will commence shortly.
The NESF held the second national anti-poverty strategy social inclusion forum in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham on 26 January 2005. The social inclusion forum gives those who are not directly involved in the social partnership process an opportunity to input their views and experiences in implementing the national anti-poverty strategy. A report of these proceedings was published in April 2005.
The NESF also hosted, in conjunction with UCD, a conference on evidence-based policy making in February 2005. The conference examined the supply and gathering of evidence and applying this in the policy making process and the design of practical policy solutions. The ongoing monitoring and evaluation of policy outcomes was an important focus of the conference.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the latest NESF report published yesterday points out that we now have a wealthier society but a more unequal one, with the wealthiest 20% of the working age population earning 12 times more than the lowest paid 20%, the least well off? Does he acknowledge he has repeatedly indicated to this House that he and his Cabinet colleagues take the NESF reports seriously and give them due consideration in the formulation of policy and approach? Would the Taoiseach agree that if he had taken on board what the NESF had said over a number of years, there would not now be such a gap between rich and poor in our society?
The NESF has repeatedly pointed out measures which should be taken by Government in order to tackle the inequalities in society. What mechanism, if any, is there to proof Government policies against the consequences which have been demonstrated by this most recent NESF report? In other words, what mechanism will the Taoiseach introduce to ensure Government policies are NESF-proofed and that this latest report will be factored into all future consideration?
That is the role of the NESF and the reason the Oireachtas is involved in it. It exists to proof the work that arises from the partnership process, as well as from other reports and from the Government's views on such matters. As the report points out, in recent years the number of people suffering from consistent poverty has more than halved from 8.3% to4.1%. It also pointed out that the top 3% of taxpayers pay 28% of tax, showing our tax system is one of the most progressive systems extant. It also revealed a host of other areas in which it is a far fairer system for people on average employment than obtains in practically any other country, particularly for lower paid individuals.
However, it also pointed out that we have one of the worst records of any of the OECD countries——
It acknowledged the progressive nature of social policy in the past five or six budgets. It makes this point clearly and the statistics bear this out. For example, it notes that for people earning the average industrial wage, the effective tax rate has fallen from approximately 27% or 28% to 15%. Nowhere else in the organised world has been able to achieve this. Moreover, it points to other areas where policy developments should result in a fairer society. To answer the Deputy's question, these issues are studied carefully and are taken into account.
I will take three brief questions from Deputies Kenny, Rabbitte and Joe Higgins.
We should be able to continue this debate tomorrow, by agreement. Although it is extremely important, it was ruled out due to time constraints. I will be brief.
I have four supplementary questions. First, in the Taoiseach's view, how realistic is the prospect of a ten-year national partnership agreement? Second, the Department of Finance's economic review and outlook published in August 2005 outlined some sobering matters for the economy. It referred to a sharp fall-off in exports, industrial productivity faltering and a stream of job losses in traditional manufacturing. What assurances can the Taoiseach give the House that these issues will be priorities on the agenda of the talks? Third, the same report states clearly that the economy relies heavily on the construction industry and on consumer spending. What arrangements has the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment made to ensure that these two issues will be central to the partnership talks?
Fourth, the NESC's strategy report for 2006 was published on 15 December. It clearly referred to the scale of immigration to Ireland and noted that immigration adds almost as much again to the rate of population growth as does natural increase and that, obviously, this temporarily improves the age dependency ratio. Arising from that report and given that such workers are welcome here, does the Taoiseach not agree that there is now a desperate need for an integrated immigration policy which will speed up the asylum process, root out exploitation and work to prevent the potential for conflict between national and non-national workers before it takes place?
Deputy Kenny has made a reasonable suggestion about continuing this discussion tomorrow. A total of 14 questions that relate to topical, important, substantial matters have been taken in five minutes. I would like to have time to ask questions about the NESF, the performance of Sustaining Progress and, in particular, the talks that are under way. I would like to pursue a number of detailed questions about displacement and the maintenance of working conditions. However, given the manner in which this matter has fallen, the opportunity has not been provided to do so.
While I am on my feet, may I ask the Taoiseach——
I do not have a problem in so doing.
It would be helpful if the Taoiseach would agree that we have overshot the available time.
Such a proposal would require an order of the House.
The Whips can arrange for the House to return to this matter tomorrow.
It might be better if that was done now.
I propose that the remaining supplementary questions be carried forward to tomorrow.
The House will hear the Taoiseach's answer to Deputy Kenny's question now and Deputy Rabbitte can leave his questions until tomorrow.
I thank the Taoiseach.
On the ten-year strategy, recent agreements have demonstrated that in a number of areas one will not achieve sufficient policy changes or implementation within a short period. One is better off staying consistently with the major issues. They do not change that much from agreement to agreement. Perhaps a few new ones are added, as is the case with employment protection this time. Most of the key issues are the same and there is better implementation of them because they are national issues which have been put forward by NESC following detailed analysis on a wide basis rather than being dropped every few years before being taken up again. It is better to address them on a long-term basis and I hope colleagues agree. Naturally, they will not agree on the pay element but they should at least agree on the policy end of the agreement.
Construction and consumer spend are major issues. The Construction Industry Federation, CIF, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment are involved in the talks and these issues will be discussed as well.
I refer to the issues relating to integration. We have invested huge resources in the issue of asylum seekers. Staff numbers have increased significantly and the backlog has been dealt with effectively. A quick process is in place to deal with applications. The only delay relates to the appeals process, as applicants keep submitting appeals. Other than that, the system works well. The issues of education, language training and the examination of the structure of employment contracts are being addressed to ensure we do not have difficulties. A study is being conducted on displacement to see if it is a problem and, if so, where and what can be done about it. That work is under way.