Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Departmental Staff.

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8768/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the policies of his Department in respect of the employment of persons with disabilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8769/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department; the number of persons with disabilities employed in his Department; the percentage of the overall staff which this represents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11818/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11880/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the percentage of persons with disabilities employed in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11936/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (33 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

There are no vacancies in my Department at present. My Department and the bodies under its aegis are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all staff. Staff are recruited through the Public Appointments Commission on the grounds that they meet the requirements of the positions they are to fill. The issue of disability does not affect recruitment. No exception is made by my Department in this regard. In line with other Departments, we follow the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice for the Employment of People with Disabilities in the Civil Service.

Promotion, training and all other benefits and opportunities are decided on the grounds of ability, qualifications and other relevant objective criteria. The percentage of staff with a disability at my Department stands at 3.64%, which is above the suggested target.

I am glad to hear the percentage of staff with a disability in the Department of the Taoiseach is 3.64% and that this is over the target set in the programme for Government. Does that target also apply to temporary staff in his Department? In other words, if people are being recruited on a temporary basis, does the same level of targeting for persons with a disability apply to temporary employees?

As I understand it, the target is for the total number of staff. The Department is judged on the quarterly report on its total staff. My Department has always sought to treat the matter realistically. I do not consider the Department's achievement to be great, as the number is small. I would like to see a higher figure. We are always seeking new ways to appoint people with disabilities, many of whom could take the opportunity if we could provide it. They have a very valuable contribution to make. I would like to see the figure for my Department rise to 4% or 5%.

Do the Department's employees with a disability, whatever it may be, move within the Department, or are they confined to the one position or job that they have been doing? Many public servants move between sections within departments. Is that done in the Department of the Taoiseach?

People with disabilities are treated on the same basis for promotion and recruitment. They are treated exactly the same. The only exception might be for telephonists, who have particular expertise in that area and who tend to stay in that job. In other grades, they can definitely move.

How many additional people should be added to this in the Taoiseach's personal constituency office?

Is the Deputy asking how many more people should there be?

There is nobody in my constituency office who comes within the category of disabled. I would not have any difficulty, however, if suitable people in the Civil Service system were found. Everybody in my constituency section bar one is a civil servant. The people in my Department who have a disability are as good as and are equal to anybody else. There might obviously be some limitations to their work, but they make up for it well in other ways.

We are talking at cross-purposes, although I accept what the Taoiseach has said about the disability quota. I was querying the number of staff in light of the Taoiseach's recent answer to a parliamentary question on that. I was asking how many additional people there would be, who were not included under that answer, working in the Taoiseach's constituency office.

All the people working in the constituency office are included in that. They are part of the staff.

Deputy Sargent.

I do not have a copy of last week's——

The Taoiseach does not know how many people are working in his constituency office.

A fair number.

The Deputy would not believe it if I told him that I have not been in the constituency office in my Department.

The Taoiseach is right. I would not believe that.

I have not been there. I do not know. I think it is six. Whatever I said last week. That office is in another part of the building and I do not think I have been in it.

Five minutes later, and I have got an answer.

The Taoiseach has so many staff, he cannot count them.

He has more than several Deputies put together.

I cannot believe the Taoiseach does not know how many people are in his constituency office.

The Deputy should proceed with his question.

My question can hopefully be answered straightforwardly. I am wondering about the 4% reduction in the Taoiseach's staff levels. Has he succeeded in making that reduction in 2005, or is any of the reduction coming off the spin doctoring wing of his Department? Am I right in saying the cost of special advisors, programme managers and press officers to the Department of the Taoiseach is €850,000? It was reported that the Taoiseach was proportionally reducing his staff. In what areas has he succeeded in this regard?

An bhfuil daoine ina Roinn atá ar a gcumas gnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge agus ceisteanna a fhreagairt trí Ghaeilge? Má tá ceisteanna le cur anseo sa Dáil chuig an Taoiseach trí Ghaeilge, an bhfuil sin indéanta ó thaobh foireann a Roinne?

My Department will reach the reduction target of 4%. With regard to any new vacancy, the Department examines how it might reschedule staff and achieve greater efficiency. We are on course to meet the target and will do so. This will not be achieved by decreasing the workload but by efficiency, and technology helps in this regard by reducing the volume of paper. We must ensure we meet the target but we must not cut any of our services or current workload.

There are people throughout my Department who are proficient in the Irish language when dealing with the public and answering e-mails, correspondence and telephone calls.

The disability legislation consultation group concluded that a more robust mechanism is required for the enforcement of the 3% quota with regard to the employment of people with disabilities. Does the Taoiseach agree that a gradual increase in this quota is needed? I take some hope from his earlier reply when he said he would like to see this increase to 4% and 5%. Does the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform monitor and enforce the quota across all Departments?

The question specifically refers to the Department of the Taoiseach.

My question also refers to the Department of the Taoiseach. Does the Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform monitor and enforce the quota with regard to the Department of the Taoiseach and all others? Is there a special unit for that purpose?

In response to an earlier question by Deputy Rabbitte, seven people work in my constituency office.

The enforcement of the quota with regard to the employment of people with disabilities is not easy to achieve and is co-ordinated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which monitors all Departments in this regard. However, it is a difficult task. I would have liked the figure to have increased many years ago, but it is hard to get people to make the effort at times. It has improved in my Department and others, and there are driving efforts to continue this improvement.

People should sometimes take a chance. A person with a disability will lose out if the same rigorous criteria are followed every time. There are many people in the system and it will not be the end of the world if it does not work out 100%. How can it? It is not easy having a disability. The Department of Labour had responsibility for the issue and was traditionally very good in this regard. Individuals made up for their disability in other ways and were always prepared to work longer hours and overtime at weekends. People should press the matter.

The issue of the quota must be pressed, monitored and driven. It is difficult to achieve but there are good people out there and more of them are applying to the Department.

Who is monitoring the issue?

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Has it a special unit?

It pursues each Department in respect of the issue. The Minister of State contacts each Department and reminds it of its responsibility. The equality section is the special unit in this regard.

Freedom of Information.

Ceisteanna (6, 7, 8, 9)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during the first quarter of 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8770/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of applications received by his Department under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 during the first quarter of 2005; the way in which this compares with the same period in 2004, 2003 and 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11819/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests which have been received in his Department; the number refused; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11881/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests to his Department in 2005 which were refused in cases in which the Secretary General has issued a certificate stating that the record contains matter relating to the deliberative process of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11937/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (26 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together.

A total of six requests were received in my Department in the first quarter of 2005. Of these, two were granted, two were part granted, one was withdrawn and there are no records in respect of one request.

In the first quarter in 2004, 11 requests were received. In the same period in 2003, 80 requests were received. In the same period in 2002, 47 requests were received.

A total of 1,095 requests have been received in my Department since the Act came into operation in April 1998. Of these, 128 were refused.

There have been no requests refused in 2005 on the basis that they relate to the deliberative process of the Department and so the Secretary General has not issued any certificates in that regard.

All requests received in my Department are processed in accordance with both the 1997 Act and the 2003 Act and their implementation is kept under constant review.

The former Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children recently appeared before the Oireachtas committee to speak in respect of the Freedom of Information Act. He said that unreserved acceptance at political level of the findings, for instance, of the Travers report, would result in great relief for public servants who often found themselves torn between their public service obligations and their professional need to maintain a constructive working relationship at political level.

Is the Taoiseach happy that the Freedom of Information Act operates in his Department on the sole basis of the legislation and that considerations of political manoeuvrability do not arise? Does he accept that the amending legislation with regard to the Act, as pioneered by the Government, was solely designed to facilitate such political movement and to spare the embarrassment of whichever Minister might be under the spotlight?

People make requests for information from my Department and others and the functions of general examination and primary decision have been delegated by order as envisaged in the Act. With regard to my Department, these functions are generally delegated to those in the grade of assistant principal officer, although a number of cases are reviewed by those in the grade of principal officer. Some 18 staff across all divisions of my Department are allocated to deal with requests as key decision makers in addition to their normal duties. These staff are mainly at the level of assistant principal officer grade 1 and higher executive officer and are the freedom of information liaison officers responsible for receipt and monitoring of requests and co-ordination of replies. Two assistant secretaries and four principal officers are responsible for internal review processes.

The information is gathered, presented and dealt with without any involvement by myself or any political people who work for me. I am lucky if there is a list——

The Taoiseach is lucky full stop.

There is a list of monthly requests for information. Sometimes I see the list and sometimes I do not. However, I have no involvement in the process whatsoever.

The changes do not help in any way other than in the improved working of the system. People who seek information about themselves can still do so for free. The €15 charge for making a freedom of information request cannot be considered a major deterrent to the responsible use of the Act. The changes have not affected that in any way.

What the Taoiseach has outlined appears to differ from what applies to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who, when I asked a question about freedom of information last year, said that he was quite entitled to release the information to the media before the response to the freedom of information request was released by the section of his Department. In his reply the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said: "Where a request is submitted in respect of records directly held by my office, my officials will bring the matter to my attention so that both I and my office——

It is not appropriate to quote.

——can fully comply with the requirements of the Act." When a freedom of information request is made to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the relevant section brings it to the Minister's notice so that he and they can fully comply with the Act. This means that the Minister, in his capacity, can feel quite free to release that information, if he feels it appropriate, before the freedom of information officer sends it to a Deputy. However, this does not seem to apply in the case of the Taoiseach, where there is no political involvement from the Taoiseach as head of his Department. Does this apply across all Departments or just to the Department of the Taoiseach?

The question relates specifically to the Department of the Taoiseach.

If I had some information in my Department, which I believed should be in the public domain and would be of some relevance, we would release it. It is not a question of waiting for a freedom of information request. We might have background data to report and we might decide to release the whole lot including case studies etc., which happens all the time. It is not triggered by a freedom of information request. While I cannot talk for every Department, I would not be aware of a freedom of information request being made. I can remember the cases where somebody might have mentioned to me that a freedom of information request had been received.

In the case of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, this information is brought to the attention of the Minister.

If I used my Department credit card, which I do not do, to go to dinner with somebody, some people might wish to know whom I was with, what I had eaten and whether I drank wine or Ballygowan.

They want to know what the Taoiseach's broadcast unit is doing.

An official might mention that such a request was received. However, other than that, they do not. For that reason I do not bother using the credit card because people would know whom I was with.

I have sympathy with the Taoiseach in that matter.

Has the Department of the Taoiseach carried out any assessment of the dramatic fall-off from 80 freedom of information requests in 2003 to six and the character of the applications that have been weeded out? Has such an analysis been carried out across Departments generally? What proportion of them was mischievous or trivial? What proportion of them was for commercial purposes, with commercial entities getting the Department to do their preparatory work, supplying them with data that otherwise would need to be compiled at some cost? This is apart entirely from applications that Members on this side of the House might believe to be meritorious but which the Government felt it appropriate to shut down.

Overall that might be an interesting study for the Department of Finance to carry out. In the early years my Department received an enormous number of requests relating to historical issues. People were going back using procedures, even current ones, to find out what the procedure might have been in the past. It was obvious they would go through the system and after a few years fall out. So there was that period of historical interest and there was considerable public interest in it. The cost of €15 will not put off those seeking the information for commercial purposes. Regarding the people who were using the system — it would be wrong to say abusing it totally — to get information and were submitting enormous numbers of freedom of information requests within the law, those requests have declined. I do not know why those people were doing it, or whether they were using the information or passing it on. However, some of the people who were at this on a regular basis seem to have tired of the system. They were probably not making much use of the material.

The number of requests for personal information has not changed. The media requests have fallen off. That has been the change. The early years were about people who had waited for a long time. We had a long debate about the matter over three years and people were waiting to submit their requests. I will keep a monitor, perhaps to the end of the year, in my Department and produce a brief report to check on the matter. I would be happy to do that.

In his answer the Taoiseach stated that six requests had been received. He then proceeded to tell us that two had been granted, two had been part granted and one was withdrawn. Does the Taoiseach want to tell us about another one or do we need to submit a freedom of information request to find that out?

One had no records.

I did not hear the final piece, go raibh maith ag an Taoiseach. Given the sizeable decrease in the number of freedom of information requests, from 143 in 2003 to 45 in 2004, and given that the Department of the Taoiseach has collected €525 in fees in 2004, does this match or exceed the cost of processing freedom of information requests? In other words does the freedom of information legislation represent a profitable enterprise? Has the €35.5 million cost of setting up Media Lab been the subject of any freedom of information request to the Department of the Taoiseach, given the Taoiseach's involvement in the establishment of that project?

The average cost as calculated by the Department of Finance is approximately €425 at 2004 levels. As the fee for each request is €15, it is a very unprofitable and costly business, and the fee represents a very small fraction of what it costs to process requests.

I believe there have been freedom of information requests regarding Media Lab. This information was either released following freedom of information requests or otherwise. I have read all about the matter in the newspapers. That information is in the public domain. Responsibility for that unit is now with a different Minister. All the information has been released and there were no secrets about that issue.

I seek clarification on one aspect of my Question No. 9. In any case did the Secretary General issue a certificate stating that the record of the subject matter of the request related to the deliberative process of the Department? Have any appeals been made to the Information Commissioner on any of the requests that were refused? Last year the Information Commissioner asked for a reappraisal of the €150 fee that applies to reviews carried out by her office.

That matter does not arise in questions to the Taoiseach. It is a matter for the Minister for Finance.

Has that review been undertaken?

That matter does not arise in this set of questions.

The Taoiseach might tell us anyway.

The Deputy asked specifically about 2005. We have not issued any certificate in 2005 and the Secretary General of my Department has never signed a certificate relating to the deliberative process. While the provision exists, we have not used it.

Public Private Partnerships.

Ceisteanna (10, 11, 12)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the March 2005 meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8771/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

11 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs last met and the membership of the sub-committee. [11677/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the last meeting of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure and public private partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11882/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (38 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.

At the March meeting of the cross-departmental team on housing, infrastructure and PPPs, the main agenda items were: housing, particularly in the context of recent reports from the National Economic and Social Council and the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution; strategic national infrastructure, especially proposals to expedite delivery; and the transport investment programme under the ten-year envelope announced on budget day.

The team met again on 4 April. At that meeting, it reviewed developments on housing, noting in particular the implementation of the affordable mortgage product. The team also considered its work programme, including the post-NDP scenario. On that specific issue, the Government has yet to make a decision on whether there will be a formal successor to the current NDP and if there is, what it should encompass. Regarding the Cabinet sub-committee to which the cross-departmental team reports, it last met on 9 March. That was the second meeting this year, with the next scheduled for 5 May.

The sub-committee, which I chair, comprises the Tánaiste and the Attorney General, along with the Ministers for Finance, Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport. It also includes the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Government Chief Whip.

Now that reform of the EU Stability and Growth pact has been agreed, can the Taoiseach put a figure on what additional moneys the State will be able to invest here in terms of infrastructure? When does he expect that the Department of Finance will be able to bring forward proposals for reform of the PPP system? As chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on infrastructure, housing and PPPs, when does the Taoiseach expect the critical infrastructure Bill to appear, or has it gone from the agenda? Is there a realistic chance that it will see the light of day? Given the €600 million shortfall in infrastructural spending in the BMW region and that the McCann report will be published shortly and will, I understand, recommend that as a major piece of western infrastructure, the entity from Sligo to Ennis, could be built and provided and would be economic——

The Deputy should address detailed questions to the relevant line Minister. Only general questions should be addressed to the Taoiseach.

It links 20 towns. For instance, as a critical piece of infrastructure, is the Taoiseach willing to see it implemented, on the basis of the report's recommendations being favourable? As it currently applies to the western rail corridor, the law actually——

This is a question for the relevant line Minister. The Deputy has made his point.

The Ceann Comhairle stated yesterday that he wanted to implement a strict rule in terms of the time available for Leaders' Questions. I guarantee that if he checks the times that were allocated today, he will find that I complied with his ruling.

I accept that.

Some of the Taoiseach's answers did not. I can prove that if the Ceann Comhairle wishes.

The Taoiseach did not speak for longer than the leader of the party to whom he was replying.

The Taoiseach can be very helpful to me.

The Taoiseach came in under time when he was replying to Deputy Kenny's question.

If the Taoiseach can reply after this little spat——

In fact, I would say that Deputy Kenny and the Taoiseach were models of perfection on Leaders' Questions this morning. Both of them stayed within time.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

It is like being in school. They can go to the top of the class.

In view of the Ceann Comhairle's kindness, I will desist from haranguing the Taoiseach further.

I will protest later that not all leaders were described as models.

I will deal briefly with the three issues raised. The Stability and Growth Pact as it now stands allows an increase in funding. If one performs an arithmetical exercise, the potential figure is something like €1 billion. All the other criteria of capital projects would have to be fulfilled, but it allows for a greater level of funding. The Members should remember that we are already spending 6% in Ireland, which is at least 2% above the average and probably double the rate in most countries. However, as I stated to Deputy Rabbitte recently, during the debate on the Stability and Growth Pact, the Government argued that the reason for this is that Ireland is a low debt country with an infrastructural deficit. The amended pact allows flexibility in the multi-annual programmes for transport and other areas.

The infrastructure Bill has just returned from the office of the Attorney General. It will be brought before the Government shortly. It is at an advanced stage and I hope it will be published by the summer although I do not think it will be taken before the summer recess.

Without going into the details, I wish to make a brief statement on the western rail corridor to be helpful to Deputy Kenny. That project should be taken on a phased basis. I noticed that as soon as I said "phased basis", everyone shouted that it should be completely implemented. Realistically, the thing to do is to try to create the corridor on a phased basis. It makes a great deal of sense to push forward on this project.

Has the Cabinet sub-committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs examined the issue of second homes? I ask in the context of the absence of real statistics regarding second homes. However, the indication is that currently, as far as new starts are concerned, the number of second homes outstrips the provision for social housing in a ratio of three to one.

The Deputy is aware that discussions of the Cabinet sub-committee are confidential and a detailed question on housing should be addressed to the line Minister.

Will the Cabinet sub-committee address this matter? This is the focus of these questions. As it is so important, will the Taoiseach state whether the Cabinet sub-committee will address this major disparity? The NESC report recommended a significant increase in local authority housing. Will the Cabinet sub-committee address the details in the NESC report? It is a damning indictment of the failure of this administration to meet social housing needs.

The Deputy has made his point.

We have more than 40,000 households——

The Deputy is making a statement.

I have made the point and I would appreciate an answer from the Taoiseach.

The categorisation of second houses is broad. One cannot infer from the figures that a second house is a house that someone lives in at weekends. Many second houses are bought for investment purposes. In that broad categorisation, the Deputy put forward figures which are probably accurate, but he is including people who have bought houses for investment purposes which are then let out in the market.

My main concern is the absence of social housing.

On the other point, the Government has addressed the NESC report and the all-party committee report. As I stated earlier, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will bring forward a position on the issue shortly. I have already stated that the matter will be debated in the House when we do so.

I have two transport-related questions for the Taoiseach. He will have noticed in the newspapers today that the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely is out with what he terms his shopping basket, although it is more like a shopping trolley, of €16 billion worth of transport projects.

Does the Deputy have a question?

I do. Does the Minister of State at the Department of Transport attend this sub-committee's transport meetings? If not, what credence should the House give to his shopping trolley full of transport projects? In the past, the Taoiseach has stated in this House that the buy-out of the West Link bridge is not possible. Since then, the National Roads Authority has stated in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport that not only is it possible——

Detailed questions should be addressed to the appropriate Minister.

Has this issue of the buy-out of the West Link and its replacement by an alternative tolling arrangement on the approach roads to the M50 been addressed at this sub-committee given that it is now the favoured option of the NRA and other transport experts in the city?

The issues the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely listed are issues that have been discussed in the ten-year multi-annual transport review. The Department of Finance and the Minister for Transport will make a final decision over the coming weeks. The Minister announced the multi-annual programme in the budget last December and the debate on the decisions to be made in that context now opens up. However, there is a finite sum available, and even if the figure is slightly bigger because of the changes to the Stability and Growth Pact, it is still not large enough to accommodate every single project that is being proposed everywhere. The issue of the respective views on the toll bridge held by the NRA and the Department has been mentioned but not debated at this sub-committee. However, the matter is being debated in the Department and in the NRA to ascertain the feasible options. If the Deputy tables a question, he will receive the update from the Minister.

The Taoiseach said that one of the main priorities on the agenda was the strategic national infrastructure question and whether we can expedite its delivery. Have any actions been taken to do precisely that? Will the Taoiseach clarify his remarks on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact? It is not clear whether as a result of the loosening or reforms of the pact, the Government will invest more to address the infrastructure deficit.

Regarding the first issue raised by Deputy Rabbitte, there has been a review of the critical infrastructure Bill and an updated and reformed version of the legislation will be brought forward. A considerable amount of work was carried out by the Minister over the last six months which has improved it.

The Department of Finance is assessing the Stability and Growth Pact and will examine the various envelopes on the capital side to see whether there should be a change in that. At this stage, there has been no change. We are at 6% and I do not accept the argument made in Brussels that we cannot be 3% ahead because we are currently 2% ahead. If one looks back to the 1960s when some of these countries were building at 6%, Ireland was building at 0.6%. I do not think we can follow that and I believe we have won that argument.

We must now make an assessment for the next decade. It is important for us to keep at 6% for ten years up to 2020 because it is only then that we will get our infrastructure up to pace. We must maintain a high level of public expenditure for a sustained period of ten to 15 years to modernise our infrastructure. We won the argument after a battle over the Stability and Growth Pact that went on for several years. This and future Governments should remain at the current level if they can afford it because we need it to modernise our infrastructure. We now have the capacity to do so and the Department of Finance will have to decide on the matter. There is no reason we cannot go above that level.

Is the Cabinet sub-committee genuinely aware of the major housing crisis, particularly for the 50,000 on local authority waiting lists? This has a knock-on effect on more than 100,000 people. What progressive proposals does the Cabinet sub-committee have to deal with social and affordable housing? Is the Taoiseach aware of the major housing crisis and is the sub-committee aware of the reality that many young couples cannot afford to buy their own homes?

The Government is very aware that supply, which was the crucifying problem for many years, has reached 80,000 units and is double what anyone believed seven or eight years ago could be achieved. This is having a knock-on effect on affordable housing because supply and demand are becoming more evenly balanced, as are the changes that have been made with regard to stamp duty and other initiatives such as Part V. Although the effects are slow to come through, we are seeing much more now under Part V and the seven or eight other initiatives. The Government is investing much more in social housing. We are also witnessing a much higher proportion of first-time buyers in the affordable housing category and in the overall housing category. The changes made on the mortgage product, which allow loans of 95% of the purchase price of affordable housing, are very helpful to young people who wish to buy their own houses.

Barr
Roinn