Vol. 669 No. 3
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the committee in his Department that oversees the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29495/08]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the work programme of the committee chaired by his Department which oversees the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; if the committee has issued new guidelines in view of the restrictions in such contracts announced in July 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38353/08]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the committee to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers is still operating; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43734/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
These questions relate to the findings of the Quigley report, which was published in 2005. That report highlighted the need for special care in cases where a proposed consultancy comprises an element of direct service to a Minister or Minister of State, particularly in the public relations or communications area, and-or where a Minister or a Minister of State suggests the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable.
As I outlined to the House previously, following publication of the Quigley report, additional procurement guidelines were approved by the Government and are published on my Department's website. The guidelines were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General, who were asked to implement them and to bring them in future to the attention of all newly-appointed Ministers, and Ministers of State where relevant, in their Department or office.
The guidelines give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. I should say, however, that there is no special committee in my Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Any workload arising from the application of these additional procedures is handled within existing resources in the Government secretariat.
The restrictions on consultancies and public relations announced last July were aimed at reducing expenditure by Departments and they have no impact on the procurement procedures which must be followed by Departments. The question of issuing new guidelines in relation to the additional procedures prescribed following the Quigley report does not, therefore, arise.
Are any measures in place to evaluate the impact of public relations campaigns, advertising and consultancies awarded by Government? For instance, in June 2007 the National Centre for Partnership and Performance launched a major public awareness campaign which involved advertising through coverage on television, radio, Internet, outdoor, press and public relations. The campaign represented an unprecedented opportunity to raise public awareness about the national workplace strategy. Does the Taoiseach know the extent of the cost of that campaign? What sort of impact analysis was carried out following that programme?
Last week it came to light that 93% of the expenditure of €866,000 by FÁS on its 2005 science challenge, was spent on advertising, PR and promotional communications. Was that matter referred to Government in respect of the extent of expenditure for covering advertising and promotional communications? Is the Taoiseach happy with the apparent sole control of this being vested in one person? In other words, if we spend 93% of a budget of €866,000 on a science challenge, which is an important element of Government strategy and considered to be important in the light of young people getting involved in this area, who approves that funding?
Does the Taoiseach consider the recommendations of the Quigley report, produced in 2005, are important, including the recommendation which states that the Department of Finance should also consider giving advice on the monitoring and recording of work done under these contracts and their quality? Does that occur and did it occur in the case of the expenditure on the science challenge by FÁS?
In regard to what progress has been made in implementing the remainder of the recommendations contained in the Quigley report, the first point to make is that by immediately drawing up and issuing the additional guidelines, all recommendations relevant to my Department were implemented.
In regard to recommendations addressed to other Departments, I understand the position to be as follows. A Department of Finance subgroup, consisting of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Government's contracts committee, carried out a review in accordance with the recommendations of the Quigley report regarding the engagement of consultants guidelines, consolidating various elements of previous guidelines and augmenting them, where appropriate. These were prepared, subsequently published and circulated.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government procurement guidelines and practices in that Department were reviewed and a set of consolidated guidelines were made available to all staff. Revised procedures were put in place to strengthen monitoring and control of procurement and intensive briefing and refresher training was arranged for all staff engaged in procurement. Reference material on procurement was also published on the Department's Internet website which made it readily available to all staff.
The OPW procurement procedures were reviewed within Dublin Castle and conference facility and public procurement best practice is applied to all procurement requirements. Within the broader OPW, a working group was established to review the procurement policies and procedures and make recommendations as to necessary changes. The report contained revised procurement guidelines for all OPW staff. They were embraced in best practice and ensure that the 2004 Department of Finance public procurement guidelines competitive process is fully implemented.
Regarding the Deputy's question, the only matters brought to my attention if a Department proposes to engage PR consultants to advise it on issues, is where the Department proposes to engage such consultants — that fact has to be brought to my attention — where there is an element of direct service to a Minister, particularly a PR communications area, and the Minister has suggested the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable. If these criteria are not applicable, then there is no need for my approval or for their referral to the Government secretariat.
Regarding PR budgets within agencies, that is a matter for senior management, as these are operational matters within individual agencies. The guidelines that apply to public bodies are expected to be adhered to and the audit committee and others are the control mechanisms by which that is scrutinised.
Following on the Taoiseach's reply, it is important that the work of State Departments and Ministers, in following through on implementing Government policy be made known to people and be made public in order that people can understand what the Government is about or supposed to be about. From that point of view, does the Taoiseach consider it is necessary for every Minister to have his or her own public relations contract, in other words, to promote the Minister individually or the Minister and Ministers of State? There is an army of press officers throughout the entire Government sector and each Department has its own press officer and so on who have, I assume, a duty and responsibility to spell out the work of the Department and, therefore, the work of the Minister.
If the Taoiseach is talking about cutbacks in current spending, would he consider the question of every Minister in the Government having his or her own public relations contract separate from the press work of the Department he or she heads? Perhaps it might be considered appropriate, under the Taoiseach's Department or whatever, to have a Government relations agency, such as the Government press and information section, which should be able to deal with the promotion of the work of all the Taoiseach's Ministers and which, I am sure, would implement a considerable saving as opposed to individual public relations contracts being allocated to each Minister. Is this a proposal the Taoiseach might examine in the context of getting out the same message but at a considerable saving?
Cut out the spin doctors.
As part of our savings, we introduced a 50% cut across all these areas. The point here is that many offices serve Departments and Ministers in respect of dealing with the media and public affairs, etc., who are themselves career civil servants; not all of them are brought in but some are and it is a matter of preference for Ministers who may have built up a relationship with people in this area over a period of time and who particularly suit their way of working. The general point to be made, however, is that this area, like every other, must be watched very closely to ensure that the benefits one would expect for the resources applied emanate and that it is run in a proper and professional way.
Regarding the idea of establishing an omnibus Government relations agency, for many Departments a certain expertise and acquaintance with the issues of the day is required. For example, the Department of Finance would be very different in terms of the needs of media and others compared to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism or another Department. In many cases, there are people who are of the Department who work either in a primary position or in supplementary positions around the person engaged as a press officer for that purpose and without whom the efficiency and efficacy of the office would be compromised. Taking account of all that, in terms of achieving savings, would one get the service required? It could be argued that we would not. There are some specialist areas that require a specialist knowledge and an ability to come back with information quickly to people.
I wish to pursue two aspects of the Quigley report with the Taoiseach. One of the recommendations of the report was that approval by the Taoiseach would be required where a Minister was taking on either an individual or a PR consultancy firm providing advice to the Minister. Was that practice ever adopted and on how many occasions, if any, has his approval been sought for the appointment of such a person?
A procedure was recommended by the Quigley report that where a Minister was nominating an individual or a PR firm to be appointed, it would be notified to the Secretary General of the Government. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House on how many occasions that practice has been complied with since 2005?
In regard to how many cases referred to the Government Secretariat under the procedure have received the Taoiseach's approval, seven cases coming within the terms of the guidelines have been processed so far. In September of this year, I agreed to the appointment of a consultant by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to conduct a facilitation exercise in connection with the consultation paper on next generation broadband. In 2007, one case was noted by my predecessor following consideration by the Secretary General to the Government of an invitation to tender for consultancy work at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to scope out a project to lead to the establishment of an independent electoral commission. I understand the candidate concerned was not subsequently successful in the tender competition. Two cases related to the appointment of an arts adviser to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. My predecessor approved one of those appointments in 2005 following appropriate prior consideration by the Secretary General to the Government. Upon the resignation of the original post holder, my predecessor approved the appointment of a successor to the post in 2006.
The three other cases referred to the Secretary General to the Government were, on consideration by him, found not to fall within the scope of the guidelines and so did not require consideration or approval. They related to the appointment of IT, PR and communications consultants, respectively.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would advise us in respect of the three which did come within the remit of the guidelines? Can he tell us what was the value or the cost of the contract in each case?
I do not have that information but I will get it for the Deputy.
How is it decided whether PR work to be undertaken is to be given to the various press offices within each Department, the Government's own press department or to go to outside contract? Has the committee in question examined the criteria used to make that call in the first instance? If not, will there be an examination of the criteria? Is it the practice of the committee to vet proposals by Ministers for PR work to be contracted out? Does the committee vet the Minister's decision?
Have there been any further restrictions on PR contracts since the Government's announcement of cutbacks in July? The Taoiseach referred to cutbacks of 50%. Will he clarify whether there has been a 50% cutback in PR operations? Does the Taoiseach refer to PR contracts or the in-house department?
We have asked for 50% reductions in PR contracts as part of our savings in the July initiative. That has been carried out. On the question of how it is decided whether to use somebody in-house or to get somebody from outside, it is a matter in many instances for the Minister. Under the guidelines Ministers have an entitlement to bring two or three advisers with him or her to a Department to help advise them on matters of policy, communications or whatever. That is the process whereby a Minister applies to the Minister for Finance for approval of the appointment of such a person within various income guidelines that are outlined. There is a procedure that enables one to decide. The appointment must come within a Minister's complement of staff. Sometimes Ministers do not make appointments for that purpose; they might have two policy advisers rather than one policy adviser and one person looking after press matters. It is a question of ministerial choice.
Does the committee vet a Minister's decision? I am not clear on that element of the matter. If a Minister wishes to bring in outside contractors for PR purposes, must he or she get the approval of the committee? If that is the case, what criteria are involved in the committee's decision?
A committee is not involved; the Minister for Finance is involved in the approval process. Arising out of an initiative that arose some years ago, the Quigley report indicated, where a Department proposed to engage consultants, that fact must be brought to the attention of the Taoiseach where there is an element of direct service to a Minister, especially in the PR-communications area, or if the Minister has suggested the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable. Where a Minister indicates he or she would like to have person X to carry out services directly for him or her, that issue would have to be brought to the attention of the Taoiseach, in addition to the approval requirement of the Minister for Finance.
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach what is his Department’s legislative programme for the current Dáil session; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29530/08]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of the 30th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32381/08]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of 2008. [32691/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
My Department currently has one item of legislation on the B list of the Government legislation programme, the Statute Law Revision Bill. That is the latest element in the statute law revision project.
In preparation for the Bill, work has been completed on the analysis of local and personal Acts up to and including 1850, and private Acts up to and including 1750. It is intended that the Bill dealing with those Acts will be published next year. Following the Bill's publication and enactment, further elements of the project will be postponed until more funds become available.
In the White Paper on regulatory reform, there is a list of actions relating to the legislative process. I raised with the Taoiseach's predecessor on many occasions the requirement to have prior sight of the heads of a Bill by Members of these Houses. The Taoiseach's predecessor gave repeated commitments that, where at all possible, he would take a proactive position in encouraging Ministers in the various Departments to respond positively to my and other Deputies' requests in this regard.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it can often be a difficult and challenging period for Opposition Deputies between sight of legislation and when they must respond in the House because often very little time is provided for that? In terms of improving the engagement and contribution of Opposition Members, does the Taoiseach accept that the publication of the heads of a Bill in advance, giving a sense of the content, focus and address of the legislation, would be of huge benefit and would significantly contribute to an improved quality of discussion on the floor of the House?
What steps has the Taoiseach taken to endeavour to build on the stated position of the former Taoiseach? Does he accept there has been little evidence of any co-operation with the former Taoiseach's stated view on the matter? Does he also accept that in most cases we do not have sight of the heads of the Bills and that the stated intent of the former Taoiseach has not been met by the actions of the various Ministers and Departments?
I am sorry the Ceann Comhairle is absent for my next point. I beg the indulgence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to record my welcome of recent correspondence from the Ceann Comhairle signalling the advent of preparatory committees in both the Houses of the Oireachtas and, correspondingly, in the Assembly in Belfast working towards the all-Ireland interparliamentary forum. I welcome that development. Could the Taoiseach indicate whether legislation is required for the establishment of the all-Ireland interparliamentary forum and the all-Ireland civic forum, both of which are promised entities under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement?
On the second part of the Deputy's question, I do not believe legislation will be required. I am not sure that a statutory basis should be provided when establishing a forum but obviously the preparatory committees in both the Oireachtas and the Assembly in Northern Ireland can consider the means by which it can be put in place.
I welcome the establishment, at the earliest possible opportunity, of the civic forum and the interparliamentary forum. They will be very important given recent welcome developments in terms of consolidating the political work envisaged under the respective agreements. This work is such that we can propose common solutions to common problems as they arise and make use of parliamentary interaction that I, as one of the original members of the British-Irish parliamentary forum, regarded as very important. It was a very important, behind-the-scenes, under the radar forum where we got to know people a lot better and in respect of which far better understanding developed regarding British-Irish affairs generally. I would very much welcome the establishment of the fora as soon as possible. I wish well the preparatory committees that are working on this matter.
On the question on heads of Bills, I will check where commitments were given by the former Taoiseach in this regard. Perhaps Deputy Ó Caoláin might refer to previous parliamentary debates, if he can recall them, in which the former Taoiseach had something to say about this matter. There probably should be room for more discussion and for making much better use of our committee system in this respect. The Deputy made the point that there is sometimes very little time in which Government or Opposition Deputies can make a contribution between the publication of a Bill and its consideration on the floor of the House, and sometimes its speedy enactment.
On the Order of Business, Members often complain about the delay in bringing Bills forward for publication. There is, therefore, considerable time between the announcement of impending legislation and its subsequent publication in which Deputies can inquire into the state of play regarding that legislation. They can do so through correspondence, the use of the committee system when the Minister is before a committee, or during Question Time or the Adjournment. There are other means by which information can be gleaned under the Standing Orders of the House rather than by doing so on the Order of Business, which I believe is sometimes over-utilised for this purpose. While there may be a short timeframe between the publication and enactment of a Bill, there is usually a very long timeframe between its announcement and publication, thus enabling Deputies to acquaint themselves with the progress being made during the drafting process.
The provision of heads of Bills would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. With regard to certain legislation, the publication of the heads might prejudice certain people in the sector in question by giving them prior knowledge or a competitive advantage, although what they find out at that stage might not reflect the full, comprehensive thinking of the Government on the specific issue in question. The heads of a Bill might indicate the general areas that are being considered but the legal phraseology in the sections of the Bill might have a far greater or lesser impact, depending on the intent of the Minister. Therefore, the heads of the Bill do not often give one an accurate read although I take the point they would give one an overall orientation regarding the intent of the Government or relevant Department regarding legislation as it is being developed. As a Member of this House, I agree and have always believed that we must encourage fuller participation of all Members of the House in respect of all work in the House, including the legislative work. The committee system, used well, effectively and in a co-ordinated way, affords an excellent opportunity to Members to do that.
I accept the point that unless legislation is taken in plenary session, the difficulty that arises in trying to seek public attention for what one has to say is not proportionate to the effort many Deputies on all sides make in trying to enact legislation that would be effective on its signature by the President. I am generally very supportive of any means by which we can assist Deputies to acquaint themselves with legislation and make a full contribution thereon. I acknowledge that this objective often falls short of being met in practice in that, when Bills are published, they sometimes require rather speedy enactment because of difficulties that arise or because of the requirement to plug a loophole immediately. I am not opposed to what has been said but each Bill must be considered on a case-by-case basis. I hear what the Deputy is saying.
With regard to the time factor, does the Taoiseach accept that, while Deputies endeavour to inform themselves of the intent and thrust of legislation, the provision of its heads would represent a significant improvement over the current practice whereby a very poor opportunity is presented to them on the Order of Business to ask questions on promised legislation? The Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle, by virtue of a Standing Order, restrict us to very particular lines of questioning in respect of potential, possible or signalled dates of publication. Does the Taoiseach accept that I am reflecting a view I believe is held by Deputies of all parties, that is, that the heads of a Bill would be of major assistance? Will he confirm that he will check the commitments made by the former Taoiseach? They were made on the floor of this Chamber on a number of occasions.
With regard to a matter very much in evidence in the course of Leaders' Questions this morning, does the Taoiseach envisage legislation from his Department arising from the work of the task force on the public service?
The report of the task force on the public service identified a range of actions that will require enabling statutory provision. It is likely, however, that as the report's recommendations are implemented, the case for further legislative provision will arise. The forthcoming White Paper on local government will also necessitate new legislation, which may provide an opportune vehicle for some of the changes proposed by the task force.
The actions include an obligation on Departments to review the mandates of State bodies at five-year intervals; changes in the reporting requirements of State agencies; the reorganisation, merger or abolition of State agencies; the removal of barriers to staff mobility and redeployment; the reinforcement, if necessary, of the county level, or groups of counties, as the basis for planning and service delivery; to enhance the powers of local government and other bodies to lead, co-ordinate or deliver services on behalf of other agencies; the possible formal delegation of financial and other responsibilities to public service managers — this would include the delegation of financial authority, responsibility and associated accountability to the lowest feasible level; and the requirement to produce an annual report on the state of the public service. The implementation phase, as the Deputy knows, commences immediately and will be overseen by a Cabinet committee, chaired by me, which will be considering the legislative provisions required in due course.
Can the Taoiseach explain why his Ministers are so bad and so slow at producing legislation? The current legislative programme lists 19 Bills that are supposed to be published this session, but only six have been published to date. I examined the list of promised legislation published in May 2003. A minerals development Bill was supposed to appear in 2004 and we are now told it will not appear until mid-2009. A national monuments Bill was supposed to appear in late 2003 and we are now told it is not possible to say when it will appear. A nurses and midwives Bill, a judicial council Bill, a Curragh of Kildare Bill and a landlord and tenant Bill were supposed to appear in 2004, but none of these has appeared.
The Taoiseach appointed additional Ministers of State. What are they doing and why are they not producing the legislation that they and the Government promised would appear four years ago? Are their travel commitments so exhausting that they are suffering from jet lag and cannot prepare the legislation when they return home? What is the problem?
The Labour Party did not do any better.
These questions relate to the Department of the Taoiseach.
I am aware that on one occasion there was a Minister of State in the Department of Fisheries who was regarded as an outstanding drafter of legislation. I understand his name was Deputy Eamon Gilmore.
I thank the Taoiseach for the very fine compliment.
I am just making the point that when the Deputy recalls his own particular skillsets, drafting legislation was not one of them.
What about the agriculture Bill?
That is unfair. It is like any other skill.
It is not unfair but was offered in the same spirit in which the question was asked.
The legislative priorities for the Government——
The Taoiseach is an expert this morning.
I am more resilient that he thinks.
The legislative priorities for the Government in the current session are as per the A list which was published in September 2008. Five of those Bills have been published and a further three that were not on the list were published. We will review the priorities for the next session in the normal course and a new list will be published in January. The focus from now to 2012 must be in implementing the programme for Government as resources allow. A number of consolidation and restatement projects are continuing.
On a general level, I take the point made by the Deputy. Legislative priorities change according as needs arise. I cannot explain each on a personal basis and it is beyond the remit of the question. However, I am sure that if one were to put down questions for Ministers one might glean why the journey for any particular legislation is so long and meandering. In many respects, the reason is that Ministers and Government and Opposition parties have identified other priorities beyond those mentioned.
There is also the fact that drafting legislation is a highly specialised craft. This bedevils consecutive Governments and I know the matter has been worked on by Governments anxious to improve performance in this area. The training and upskilling of people from within the system requires continuing effort. As Deputies know, there are many people who have retired from the service and that without their continuing effort beyond retirement we would be left in a very difficult situation regarding some of these issues.
However, it is a point. I can ask the Chief Whip to come back to me on the present state of play concerning drafters of legislation in the system.
When the Taoiseach was in reflective mood responding to Deputy Ó Caoláin, he talked about the value of the committee system and the very valuable work that is done on legislation in committees. I agree with him about that. However, there is legislation which the Government stated it wished to have enacted before the end of the year, namely, the Bill to take the medical card from pensioners.
After this week there will be only six sitting days before Christmas. I am sure the Taoiseach will agree this important legislation should get the fullest debate and examination in the House, on Committee Stage and other stages. When will the Government publish the Bill in which it threatened to take the medical card from pensioners? How much time will be provided in the House for that Bill to be debated? Is the Government going to try to railroad it through and get it passed in the middle of the night in the hope that nobody will notice it?
That is more properly a question for the line Minister or for the Order of Business, rather than one that relates to legislation in the Taoiseach's Department.
Perhaps the Taoiseach wants to answer it.
For the purpose of shortening the Order of Business——
The Taoiseach wants to get out of here.
——which I would greatly welcome, I will answer. That Bill was approved by Government this week. Its purpose, simply, is to amend the Health Acts in respect of the automatic entitlement, regarding means. As the Deputy knows, the reforms we are to introduce mean that 19 of 20 existing cardholders will retain their medical card entitlement. The change will concern people on incomes well above €75,000. That would be the cut off limit for a medical card for people over 70 years of age.
Does the €75,000 limit refer to an individual or to a couple?
I will check——
It refers to a couple. The limit is €75,000 for a couple and half that amount for an individual.
The Deputy will be aware of the public announcements concerning this matter. The Bill will reflect the announcements made at the time. The welcome reform of the fee arrangements with general practitioners has enabled us to ensure that the impact will be minimal on those who were in receipt of medical cards in the past, regardless of means. Those in that age group who require medical cards will retain their cards.
It is important that the Bill be enacted before Christmas for the reasons I have given. It will bring certainty to the issue. There is no reason why this should not take place before the end of the session. It is a matter for the Whips to work out the arrangements but it is the intention of Government to enact the legislation. This is consistent with the public announcements which have been well articulated and communicated to the public at this stage.
When will the Bill be published?
This week.
The Taoiseach's jet is warming up for him before he heads away. It might be appropriate if he briefed the Members on the Opposition side about the elements of the solution he will discuss with the French, the Swedish and the Finnish. That might be in everybody's interest.
The Taoiseach mentioned the promotion of Deputies who work in committees. What is the position of reform in the Dáil? I understand the Whip has proposals for a parliamentary channel that would cover Dáil, Seanad and committee work, as a public service dealing with legislation under the Taoiseach's Department and other Departments. Deputies on all sides of the House are locked away in committee rooms for considerable periods and receive no coverage. I genuinely believe a public service could be provided if we had our own unadulterated Oireachtas channel. The message from all parties——
Edited slightly.
Not even slightly.
Perhaps edited slightly. I merely make that point because it might be in everybody's interest.
An amendment to the Competition Act 2002 is required because consultations must be entered into with the Irish Medical Organisation. This follows the Government's decision to make changes in respect of medical cards for those aged over 70. Yesterday the Government approved the Bill concerning medical cards. Can the Taoiseach give any indication when the legislative changes dealing with the IMO on this matter will take place? Direct talks with general practitioners will be required. Is it intended to include the Dental Association and the Irish Pharmaceutical Union in that legislation? Those bodies are central to the issue.
If the Taoiseach is to answer during his Questions Time questions on legislation that are intended for line Ministers, he is opening a precedent.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is being a little punitive. I am making an effort to be co-operative.
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach has had his breakfast.
I could have sought the protection of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but——
I am happy to give the Taoiseach as much latitude as he would like.
Perhaps the word "precedent" should be struck from the record.
I refer Deputy Kenny to the statement made by Government at the time on these matters. It involved a commitment to work to see if we could bring forward a provision under the Competition Act that would be consistent with EU law. That is where the issue must begin and that was in the public statement. The organisation concerned would be well aware of the nature of the commitment and the bona fides of Government to work in that respect. However, legislation must be consistent with EU law and therefore the question of its publication can only arise when that issue has been resolved and dealt with after further discussion. On the basis of the implementation of these arrangements, a statutory basis is being sought in the context of publication of the Bill and its enactment before the end of this term.
With regard to other organisations, the commitment relates to the IMO, based on legal advice. One cannot assume, because of the nature of the activities of other professional organisations, that they come under the same umbrella. It is not necessarily the case.
7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has received the fifth periodic report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29577/08]
8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the next report from the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32383/08]
9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32696/08]
10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the latest report of the National Economic and Social Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35749/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
The fifth periodic report on the work of the National Economic and Social Forum was published in July of this year. As required under Section 8(2)(c) of the National Economic and Social Development Act, the report was submitted to Government prior to publication. Copies of the report have also been laid in both Houses of the Oireachtas.
This periodic report covers reports published by the NESF between 2003 and 2006. In broad terms, its purpose is to review implementation and follow through, mainly by Government Departments and State agencies, of the proposals contained in the reports covered. The fifth periodic report reviews the work published by the forum on the following topics: labour market issues for older people, equality policies for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, the policy implications of social capital, early childhood care and education, care for older people and creating a more inclusive labour market.
Questions in relation to specific policy areas would be appropriate for reply by the Minister with the relevant responsibility. The next report I expect to receive from the NESF is that relating to the fifth meeting of the Social Inclusion Forum, which took place last week in Croke Park. A conference report on the proceedings will be published and circulated to each Member of the House.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the fifth periodic report of the work of the National Economic and Social Forum states that Ireland continues to rate among the lowest investors in early childhood care and education? Does he accept that little progress has been made regarding the implementation of the policy decisions set out in the Government's White Paper on early childhood care and education, which if he recalls, was published in 1999?
What is the Taoiseach's position on the central recommendation of the report of the NESF to the effect that the State should provide and fund high quality care for children in the year before they commence their primary school education? Will he not accept that it is a damning indictment of the Government's record on child care that a body such as the NESF, which was established by the Government, would outline with such forcefulness its concern and recognition of the failure of Government to act in the interests of young people? How will he rectify this major failure to invest in young children here in this country?
I do not accept the contention that there has not been major investment in young people in this country. On the contrary, billions of euro are being expended in respect of child care and early child care supplement. There has been a doubling and more in the education budget in recent years together with an historic capital investment programme to improve the working environment in which teachers educate children, apart from the very large expansion in child care services taking place in the health service. Therefore, I reject the contention that there is no investment in child care issues in Ireland — quite the contrary. All of this is being addressed within the programme of Towards 2016 and the social partnership framework for these issues.
Regarding the function of the NESF, it is charged with advising the Taoiseach on policies to achieve greater equality and social inclusion, as well as on such other matters as may be specified by the Taoiseach in the context of social partnership arrangements — by analysing, evaluating and monitoring viable programmes and policies — and to facilitate public consultation on policy matters as referred to by the Government from time to time.
The NESF's advisory role is well respected and well noted. With regard to the specific report mentioned by the Deputy, the NESF welcomed the Government's decision to establish the Office of the Minister for Children, which plays a lead role in driving forward the process of change and reform in this sector. The work of county and city child care committees was also commended. The forum noted the establishment of an interdepartmental group to develop a national child care training strategy and the launch of national guidelines for child minders, which are positive developments in this area. The NESF further noted that regulations in the area of inspection and evaluation of pre-school facilities are to be strengthened and published.
In the report, the forum expressed regret that little strategic attention has yet been paid to reform of primary schools in terms of facilities, etc., and also expresses disappointment that one of its key recommendations, namely, the Government provision, free of charge, of a high quality pre-school session of 3.5 hours a day for all children, has not been accepted. That is noted and we shall continue, as resources allow, to consider these matters. However, I do not accept the very negative orientation that was put by the Deputy.
