Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way the proposals contained in the National Recovery Plan, 2011-2014 will impact on his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45172/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
National Recovery Plan
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way it is intended to achieve the savings in his group of Votes set out in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45173/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has drafted an action plan under the Croke Park agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45954/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected expenditure by him in 2011; the way that figure compares to the estimate for 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46017/10]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements he is putting in place for the implementation of those elements of the Government’s national recovery plan that relate to his Department or the agencies under his aegis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46018/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his Department’s Estimates for 2011 [46961/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Savings of up to €35 million will be implemented from my group of Votes, which includes the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Central Statistics Office, CSO, by 2014. The focus of savings is primarily aimed at administrative efficiencies given that most of the expenditure across this group of Votes comprises administrative budgets. The total allocation for my Department in the Estimates set out in the budget book for 2011 is €25.062 million. This is an overall decrease of 15% — €4.394 million — on the 2010 Revised Estimates allocation. This includes a reduction of 15% in the administrative budget. Savings will be achieved through administrative and operational efficiencies as set out in the Department's action plan, which includes commitments with regard to staff numbers, budgets, procurement and shared services. In light of the nature of the work of the Department, the action plan is closely aligned with measures to improve the effectiveness of the Civil Service as a whole, in particular through enhanced mobility and shared service provision.
The outputs of the CSO are demand-driven to a large degree and respond to European Union and national statistical obligations. The CSO has also achieved operational savings and continues to prioritise work programmes in light of emerging budgets. The 2011 allocation for the CSO includes significant additional resources to provide for conducting the 2011 census of population. These resources will be reduced in 2012 and in subsequent years. The outputs of the law offices are also demand-driven. In addition to securing economies and increased operational efficiencies, the law offices have been exerting strong control in respect of expenditure on legal fees. This will be continued in the coming years.
With regard to the measures set out in the national recovery plan to enhance competitiveness, increase active labour market policy efforts and accelerate the rate of economic growth, my Department will support the implementation of these measures through the work of the relevant Cabinet committees and their associated senior officials groups.
In respect of the proposed savings in the Department of the Taoiseach and its associated group of Votes, are reductions in staffing levels envisaged? The Taoiseach should outline the position in respect of both the Department and the other offices.
The annual report for 2009 for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was published today. The DPP stated in the report that his office was very stretched and that in the event of an increase in the workload of the office something must give. Will the Taoiseach assure Members that no prosecution will not be pursued or that no prosecution will be delayed on foot of any savings that are to be made in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If a Garda file or files are presented to the office relating to the investigations the Garda has under way in the banking sector, can the Taoiseach assure Members that there will be no delay in the pursuit of or dealing with such files?
On the last matter raised by the Deputy, there has been close liaison between the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the investigating authorities and obviously they are a matter of major priority. It is in the public interest that they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Concern has been raised about the length of time it takes but there is also a necessity to ensure there is due process and that nothing is said or done that would compromise the prospective prosecution of any persons arising from those investigations. Taking all of that into account, there is no reason to believe that these matters will not be given the utmost priority.
In regard to the savings in the Department, the Government, as I said, has already reduced its overall staff numbers by 10% since January 2008 and will continue to reduce numbers, while maintaining services, by a further 2% below the employment control framework target set by the Department of Finance by the end of 2014. That is the reference point for that question.
Since January 2008, some 35 staff have been redeployed to other departments and we will continue to facilitate actively the reallocation of staff to the areas of greatest need in accordance with the redeployment arrangements set out in the Croke Park agreement. The total budget for the Department was reduced between 2008 and 2010 by 31%, including a reduction of 11% in the administration budget. The administration budget Estimate for 2011 has been reduced by 15% over the 2010 Revised Estimate. Further savings over the period of the plan will be achieved through continued efficiencies and procurement practices, greater use of technology and shared services, energy efficiency programmes, the use of central framework agreements and the close monitoring of all expenditure.
Regarding the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, which was referred to by the Deputy, there is a pressing requirement for all public sector organisations to examine critically how they operate and seek to deliver greater efficiencies. Like other public service organisations, the DPP is subject to the decision of the Government to restrict recruitment and promotions. However, the office has taken steps to comply with the Government decision without adversely affecting front line prosecution services.
We will continue to work with officials from the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Finance to ensure the necessary resources continue to be available to the DPP to enable it to fully and effectively discharge its function.
I note there is an allocation of €6.7 million for the Moriarty tribunal for 2011, which is a slight reduction on what was provided in 2010. Why is the allocation almost as high in 2011 as it was for 2010 if, as we have been told, it has now completed its public hearings? When does the Taoiseach expect the tribunal to complete its work and present its report?
We are still working to the schedule which applied in the last correspondence we received from the judge. We have received no correspondence since then that would change the situation.
On the allocation within subhead D, the provision relates to the running costs of the tribunal in 2011 and the costs which are estimated to arise in 2011 in regard to the completion of the tribunal's work. It is expected to include reporting costs and some element of the award of legal costs. As it is not possible to assess definitively the amount of legal costs which may be awarded by the tribunal or the timing of these awards, provision of approximately €6.7 million has been included. However, this is an estimate only. The total spend in 2010 to the end of November was €2.545 million.
Did I hear the Taoiseach correctly when he said in the block of Votes relevant to his Department that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is included?
Yes.
In view of the comments made by the DPP, Mr. Hamilton, in respect of the difficulties his office is experiencing, if further savings are to be made there in 2011 can the Taoiseach confirm they will not be at the expense of it being able to deliver the service of which the DPP has spoken in the past? Those services are necessary if we are to have fairness and transparency in the justice areas with which the DPP deals.
As I said in response to the third issue raised by Deputy Gilmore when he was asking supplementary questions, we will work with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is a public sector organisation. The issues that apply to other offices, which are having to make these changes and adapt to these circumstances, also apply to the DPP's office. The number of staff in the office's directing and solicitors divisions have remained relatively unchanged in the past two years. Most of the savings have been made in the administration division. This has allowed the office to achieve savings and efficiencies while preserving front line prosecution services to meet the needs of its workload. The Department of Finance recently sanctioned the temporary recruitment of up to four solicitors to cover for staff on maternity leave in 2011. It has also sanctioned the recruitment of three temporary solicitors to deal with files relating to the banking and financial sectors. This will enable the DPP to assign existing experienced staff to the banking files, while using the temporary appointments to fill posts in other areas.
These issues are arising all the time in the present circumstances. The changes in staff numbers in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in recent years have taken place in the context of the solid staffing base that was put in place in the office in 2007. Following a review of staffing requirements at that time, the Minister for Finance approved 28 new permanent posts and one contract post for the office. Some 21 of those posts related to legal and professional grades, which was a reflection of the increase in the volume and complexity of the work being undertaken by the office. Officials in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance are making an ongoing effort to work together to ensure the necessary resources are available.
I thank the Taoiseach for that response. The Director of Public Prosecutions made two important points. He said that if the current trend continues, "something will have to give". He also said he is considering extending to serious cases of sexual abuse the facility available to him when people look for a reason a prosecution was not pursued in serious cases. In his response, the Taoiseach outlined the number of staff who have been recruited in the legal and personnel sections of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in recent years. Based on those figures, is the Taoiseach happy that something will not have to give? In other words, if there is an increase in correspondence or contact with the office about the service it provides, is the Taoiseach reasonably happy that the office will be able to meet that demand?
I have outlined the context of the situation as things stand. Like any organisation, I am sure it would be helpful for this organisation if other staff were available. We have to work within the constraints that apply to us all. I recognise the importance of the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We need to work in a realistic way to address certain issues. As the Deputy is aware, these matters arise on an ongoing basis. The office is working despite the reductions that have taken place, which have been primarily on the administrative side, as I have said. The nature of the work done by the office means that administrative people are important, just as the staff in the professional and other grades are important. Everyone has a job to do. The office will have to try to work within the constraints under which we are all having to operate without affecting its ability to do its job. I am sure it is doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. As I said in my opening reply:
The outputs of the law offices are also demand-driven. In addition to securing economies and increased operational efficiencies, the law offices have been exerting strong control in respect of expenditure on legal fees. This will be continued in the coming years.
There is increased work. There are substantial fees to be paid for that work. One has to ensure it is paid for at rates that can be afforded by the taxpayer.
Question No. 5 relates to the elements of the Government's national recovery plan which come under the Department of the Taoiseach or agencies under it. Does the Taoiseach have any information in his brief on what those elements of the Government's national plan are in so far as they affect his Department or agencies under its control and the arrangements being made for those elements to be implemented?
My Department has to play its part in achieving the overall expenditure reductions required by the National Recovery Plan 2011-14. I was making the point that a large portion of the budgets of the offices under the group of Votes for which I have responsibility are administrative in character and, quite properly, have been taking reductions. They are making a contribution as one might expect the Taoiseach's office to do in giving a leadership role in that respect. Whatever has been sought has been delivered on.
The delivery of front line services to the public will not be affected as a result of the introduction of the cost saving measures. An action plan is in place to achieve that and to use the redeployment mechanism that is available where there are critical service pressures. We have been able to contribute in that regard, with some 35 staff members from the Department of the Taoiseach being moved elsewhere where that was considered helpful. The Department also continues to do the job it is expected to do. There is a further 15% cut this year within the Department, so that is giving a lead as one would expect.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach has had the same opportunity as other Deputies in the interludes from this House at weekends to learn from constituents how they feel about the situation unfolding, particularly the first real outworking of the so-called national recovery plan, namely, the budget and the impact it is having already on the lives of ordinary people, along with all the other measure signalled from January to March, etc.
I can share with him, however, my experience of the anger, concern and fear, the emotions most in evidence among the people I have met since the House adjourned last Friday. For them, the so-called national recovery plan is, indeed, a national impoverishment plan so devastating is the effect it will have on their lives. As he has indicated on a number of occasions here that €14.5 billion has been taken out of the economy over the past two years, how does the Taoiseach rationalise that taking another €15 billion out of the real economy over the next few years will make a difference when the first €14.5 billion clearly has not impacted in any way in terms of turning the tide? How is it that by doubling that figure and taking another €15 billion out of the economy we are going to see a change, because none is evident? Unemployment remains at a very high level and emigration is growing — hence the impact on the live register — in addition to the bank deficit debacle and the range of other issues presenting at this time. None of this is being corrected, it seems, by any of the measures that have been taken so far. How does the so-called national recovery plan impact in relation to the programme for Government? What are the Taoiseach's views of the comments this morning on "Morning Ireland" by the Minister for Finance when he talked about silly post-election political programmes? In my view and that of many listeners, he was referring to the Fianna Fáil-Green Party programme for Government after the last election. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Minister that these were silly programmes?
All of us interact with the public on an ongoing basis, regardless whether one is at home or travelling throughout the country. One of the big pluses is the degree of certainty it provides for people in terms of what is envisaged for the coming year. The uncertainty before the budget and some of the commentary made upon it beforehand spooked people as to what was involved. While it seeks a contribution from all sections of society, given the importance of putting our public finances back in order, it also provides us with the means for recovery, having stabilised the economy this year following a contraction of 7.5% the previous year. The budgetary strategy for 2010 came in on target, with expenditure broadly within target and revenues up €500 million on what was expected. We still have a deficit. In other words, the difference between what we spend and what we take in must be reduced.
The Deputy's suggestion, which is implicit in the premise of his question, that we can continue to implement budgets wherein the level of expenditure exceeds the level of revenue coming in is not possible in current circumstances in this or any other country. The false option which the Deputy may be indicating is not available at all. The recovery plan is predicated on reducing expenditure, increasing taxation and promoting growth. That is what we will continue to do, as provided for in the plan. On the suggestions put forward by the Deputy's party, I fundamentally disagree with them in terms of prospects for growth. The suggestion that 80% of the €15 billion could be made up from increased taxes would probably be the biggest jobs killer of all. I do not agree either with the Labour Party suggestion that 50% of that sum should be raised by way of taxes, with the other 50% being raised by way of cuts.
The Labour Party recommended less tax cuts than the Government implemented.
Exactly. The Labour Party suggested more tax.
The Government did more in relation to tax than we were recommending.
That is not correct.
It is correct.
I have read the Labour Party documentation. I would have thought Deputy Gilmore had read the document presented by him.
The Taoiseach should read again what it says in regard to income tax.
I will bring it into the House tomorrow and read what it says into the record.
Bring it on.
It is clear what the Labour Party's tax take is, which is €2.5 billion.
The Taoiseach has misinterpreted it.
The Taoiseach is obviously encouraged by the media commentary on his defence of the indefensible here last week when he employed an old talent he had buried for some time, namely, his usual bluster. While that may have given a bit of lift to Fianna Fail backbenchers, it has done absolutely nothing for the wider public or to assuage the real fears of Opposition voices in this House. Contrary to the Taoiseach's view that the question I posed implies "sit still and everything will be fine", nothing could be further from the truth. The Taoiseach has not answered any of the questions I put to him.
The Taoiseach referred to having read other parties documents. Without question, I am confident that I can stand over the potential impact of the stimulus package we have commended in our recommendations. The Government has not provided a stimulus package on job retention or creation. The national impoverishment plan which the Government is outworking and under which it introduced with some trumpeting last week the first budget——
I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin not to lose sight of the fact that this is Question Time.
We are obviously going to disagree. The sad reality is that the Taoiseach has again demonstrated a closed mind to other ideas because they come with respective party political tags, which is most regrettable. I again ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the position he is taking because there is no evidence, despite what he has endeavoured to sell here this afternoon, that taking money out of the economy will arrest the decline and lead to recovery. It cannot and will not. I again ask the Taoiseach to respond to the reference by the Minister for Finance this morning on "Morning Ireland" to the programme for Government between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party as a silly post-election political programme.
That was not his position. He was speaking generally about the roles of programmes for Government over the past 15 to 20 years.
There were all silly. Is that right?
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to continue.
No. If the Deputy would like my answer, I can give him an answer.
That is what the Taoiseach is saying now and that he was referring to them all.
I am not. If the Deputy wants me to answer the question——
I am listening to the Taoiseach.
We are not in a kangaroo court where a preconceived decision is made.
I would hope not.
So would I. I would love to see the Deputy trying to bring me into one. All programmes for government are subject to the budgetary circumstances. I refer him to every one of them, including the rainbow coalition programme and the Fianna Fáil-Labour Party programme. All commitments in every programme are subject to overall budgetary requirements because, otherwise, there is no reality to them and that is why those provisions are in place in every programme.
Second, the counterargument I am putting is the Deputy is saying the €15 billion should be left in and we should run another deficit of €18.8 billion next year.
Not at all.
The Deputy, therefore, is saying he would not take this amount out. If he will not take it out one way, what way will he take this out? Is it going to be tax?
The Taoiseach is the one who said he had read our document——
I am trying to figure out the Deputy's position.
——and he has had it for several weeks.
It still does not make sense to me. That is why I am asking questions.
It makes sense.
If Sinn Féin is not taking €15 billion out in expenditure, is it taking it out in tax or is it taking it out at all? Will it be taken out of one bank and put in another? Is the party bringing it down somewhere else and putting it somewhere?
Does Deputy Cowen want me to answer a Taoiseach's question?
What does the Deputy want me to do with the deficit?
Let us not have a breakdown of normal arrangements.
I agree with the Taoiseach that I would make an eminently better job of it than he is and that he is not capable of answering the questions being asked.
I am answering the questions but I am clearly upsetting the Deputy.
I would be very happy to take Taoiseach's questions with the Ceann Comhairle's permission.
Rather than putting the questions, I will answer them as well.
If the Taoiseach is lost — and clearly he is — I would be very happy to take up the position.
Do I not welcome the formation of that group?
The one thing the Taoiseach can be sure of is he will not be in it. Do not worry.
That is for sure. The Deputy should not worry about. I will not contaminate the Deputy's group with my presence.
If the Deputy is saying we should leave the €15 billion in, then one is talking about continuing with the deficits we have. It is clearly the case that there is no access to funds available to this country on that basis and, therefore, by July 2011, when the Deputy goes up to Monaghan for his weekend sojourn after being in the House — if he is still here after the next election — he will have to explain to his constituents how Sinn Féin will get them their social welfare payments even though we have suddenly run out of money but he will be able to say to them "But do not worry, Sinn Féin has a plan". I would love to know what that plan will be.
The running out of money——
Sinn Féin was not short of funds before. It has very creative ways of finding money.
That is so ridiculous.
It is not. The next way one closes it——
The Government parties have presided over the loss of countless billions of euro and they are the people who are going to strap the deficit with a debt for years and years to come.
Can we have the Taoiseach without interruption please?
Give us a break. The Taoiseach has no credibility.
The Deputy cannot take this because Sinn Féin does not have a credible alternative.
We certainly do.
If he is not taking €15 billion out in expenditure, he will have to take it out in taxation. We have, therefore——
This is about what the Government will do.
The Deputy has suggested I have the wrong proposals. I have explained to him in the House over a number of weeks why I think ours have a better chance than his. He said, "No, we would not take it out" and then he said, "We would take it out". When I ask him how he would so, he is not prepared to say. The bottom line is in Sinn Féin's documentation there is an 80% adjustment through taxation and a 20% adjustment through expenditure.
No, what the Taoiseach is missing out——
That is what it says. I am not missing anything. That is the basic point and that is the biggest jobs killer of all.
We propose the investment of in excess of €7 billion in a stimulus package over three and a half years. The Taoiseach should think about that because it is the one thought he has not had and it is the one that could make a critical difference to job creation.
The Deputy is imparting information. He ought to ask questions.
The Taoiseach is reversing our roles.
Regulatory Reform
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the publication of the recent OECD report on Better Regulation in Ireland. [45949/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the implementation of the 2001 OECD Report on Regulatory Reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45950/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the publication on 2 November 2010, of the OECD Report on Better Regulation in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46968/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
I have outlined to the House on many occasions progress on the implementation of the OECD's 2001 report on regulatory reform in Ireland and the Government's 2004 White Paper on regulation. The better regulation unit in my Department is tasked with driving and supporting key projects across Government. In this context, it chairs the senior officials' group on economic regulation which oversaw the preparation of the Government's statement on economic regulation. Following the publication of that statement, I chaired the first meeting of the annual regulatory forum on 26 February last. The regulatory liaison group has already met twice this year.
Relevant Departments have been working closely with regulators in recent months to stress-test regulatory frameworks to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to be able to respond to major shocks and changes in their sectors and in the wider economy. A number of potential scenarios have already been identified in the case of each sector and it is expected that the Government will receive a report on the stress testing exercises shortly.
On 2 November last, the OECD published its Review of Better Regulation Systems and Processes in Ireland. The report is available at www.betterregulation.ie and copies have also been placed in the Oireachtas Library. The review was conducted as part of a larger project funded by the EU Commission and encompassing the original 15 members of the EU. It provides a comprehensive analysis of regulatory capacity in Ireland and the processes underpinning it. These processes include regulatory impact analysis, RIA; administrative burden reduction and approaches to the enforcement of regulation; and our approaches to the negotiation and transposition of EU legislation from a better regulation perspective.
The OECD notes that, in many areas, Ireland compares well with its European counterparts but suggests that further efforts will be necessary to improve competitiveness and contribute to economic recovery. Ireland's input into the recent EU Commission/OECD review was overseen by the senior officials group on economic regulation, which has now been tasked with developing appropriate actions to respond to the OECD's findings and recommendations.
The better regulation unit has an ongoing role in supporting Departments conducting regulatory impact analysis on legislative proposals. The importance of this function was highlighted by the OECD in its recent report. While good progress has been made, it is clear there are still problems regarding the quality of RIAs produced by Departments and the extent to which Departments comply with RIA requirements relating to draft EU legislation and significant statutory instruments. This will be among the issues which the senior officials group will look at as part of the response to the OECD's latest report.
These questions relate to the OECD report on better regulation. Last night we saw on our television screens an example of no regulation. The "Prime Time Investigates" programme showed horrific examples of the way in which home care companies are recruiting workers with no training, no Garda vetting and no checking of references. It appears there is little or no inspection of what is taking place. A policy decision by this Government to wind down services being provided through the public health authorities and the HSE cut the amount of home help that is available to families caring for older people. A new private sector in home care provision has developed which is not regulated and parts of it, as we saw last night, has serious questions to answer. When will there be regulation of home care provision to deal with the horrific examples of abuse of elderly people which we saw on our television screens last night?
It sounds like a question for the Minister for Health and Children.
It is about regulation.
The supplementary documentation I have relates to the OECD report, which is a more general regulatory report.
I did not see the programme last night but I am aware from reports about it that there are clearly issues which are unacceptable and must be investigated and examined closely. The vast majority of services in this area are supplied by the HSE and HSE personnel but, as the Deputy said, a home care package programme has also been brought forward. There are many reputable service providers in that area but clearly some are unscrupulous and have not done their job properly. There is a commitment to look at this area, in respect of the public provision directly from the HSE and in respect of those who are involved in providing services through the private sector. All of that will have to be examined as a matter of urgency and I welcome the fact that this will be done.
In respect of the question on regulation, providing guidelines and making sure that standards and access to these services are more uniform across the country, I noted what the Minister of State with responsibility for elder people had to say this morning about guidelines coming forward in the New Year, as a result of much work done on the issue recently, and I look forward to those guidelines being brought forward quickly.
The problem is the huge gap between the theory and the practice. We have an official report from the OECD dealing with regulation, and then we have what is happening on the ground at a practical level. The reason we have the problem described so clearly last night on "Prime Time Investigates" is that this Government has made it more difficult for families to care for older people. There have been reductions in home help provision and home help hours, and people have difficulties in getting——
This is the "foot in the door" syndrome.
——the carer's allowance. I also heard what the Minister of State had to say this morning. She spoke about guidelines being introduced, but she was not able to say when the statutory regulation will be brought in. I understand that some work is being done in preparing legislation. Can the Taoiseach tell us when there will be statutory regulation of home care services?
We are moving into specific territory, but to be as helpful as I can, I do not accept that the Government has been seeking to make it more difficult. For example, the supervisory function of HIQA has been a good introduction for the health services in general and has led to a more objective uniform standard being provided. There has been a great increase over time in the provision of home help and carers. We are seeking to maintain front line services to the greatest extent we can, but there is a budgetary reality that we must try to deal with. We certainly hope that these community based services can continue to be provided to the greatest extent possible. I do not have that information in front of me now. It is true that it has become more widely available, and that is a good thing. There is obviously pressure on budgets everywhere, given the current situation. However, I believe that this level of provision will be as good as we have seen in recent years, as a result of efforts made in other areas to find savings. That is as it should be.
Entitlements for carers have remained for those who have other sources of welfare benefit, which was an innovation that was brought forward. We brought about a situation that changed considerably from the previous administration where carer's allowance became the highest social welfare payment in the code. These are all indications of the policies put in place that show we were trying to assist those people who are caring for their families, where it is appropriate, in community-based settings or home settings. That is as it should be.
Statutory regulation has to be examined as a matter of urgency. Putting in place guidelines as a first step to invoking statutory policies needs to be done in any event. In terms of an immediate response, whatever can be done as part of a wider approach of preparing statutory instruments and so on should be done. The investigation by the HSE, which will cover everyone who is in receipt of such services and which will presumably take some time, should inform us about the best way forward.
As Deputies know, the spectrum of need varies from case to case. We started with basic home help services — good-neighbour type services — which were provided in a flexible way and were suitable for those who require care and their families. We need to make sure there is proportionality in whatever we try to do. We must provide the necessary protections, but let us not have a system that would prevent people from——
One final supplementary, Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Go raibh maith agat.
——taking on work in a helpful way. We must make sure the work is done on a neighbourly basis.
A minor filibuster.
The OECD report published on 2 November, which was welcomed by the Taoiseach, stated: "Regulatory as well as policy failures were a fundamental factor underlying the downturn". Is the Taoiseach aware that in 2006 the same OECD stated in a report on house prices that the most likely scenario was that prices would level out or decline slightly? In 2008, it went further and stated: "Much of the exceptionally large increase in house prices can be justified by Ireland's strong income growth, population expansion and the rising share of younger households". Clearly, there is a major discrepancy between the position of the OECD in 2006 and 2008 and its position in 2010. Would the Taoiseach like to comment on that discrepancy and on the role of the OECD in helping to create an illusion, a mirage?
I do not think it played any role in creating an illusion or mirage. What the Deputy's point shows graphically, as I have said myself on other occasions, is that international commentary in previous years did not foresee the scope, depth or severity of the financial crisis that came upon us in the autumn of 2008 and that we have been seeking to deal with since. In the planning that was undertaken, such worst-case scenarios were not contemplated as something to be prepared for. The OECD was not alone in that regard. The IMF, which deals with situations of crisis in economies, whether fiscal or otherwise, itself did not include that scenario in its planning.
It certainly did not. The Taoiseach is quite right.
Not very many people, if anyone, did. There are many who, with hindsight, point to this, that or the other to suggest that they were saying it all along but that was certainly not the case in the years preceding the crisis. There were risks but a confluence of the realisation of all of those risks was not regarded as being worthy of short odds. The international and domestic problems that hit us subsequently were very severe and we are still contending with them. The OECD was not on its own in saying that, and its having said that does not take away from other good work it has done, including the work we are considering in these questions.