Joe Higgins
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the decentralisation programme as it affects his Department. [15217/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraDecentralisation Programme.
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4)
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff within his Department who have applied for transfer to locations outside of Dublin under the Government’s decentralisation programme; the impact, if any, this will have on his Department; if there are plans to decentralise any part of his Department or any agency under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16047/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who have applied for relocation under the Government’s decentralisation programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16997/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which the decentralisation programme affects his Department or any agency under the aegis of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18320/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (21 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
There are no proposals to decentralise any section of my Department or any of the bodies or agencies operating under its aegis. A significant part of the Central Statistics Office is located in Cork. A total of 42 staff from my Department have applied through the central applications facility to relocate under the decentralisation programme. The breakdown by grade is assistant principal, six; administrative officer, nine; higher executive officer, four; executive officer, 11; staff officer, three; and clerical officer, nine.
What percentage of the Taoiseach's staff does that number comprise? How does it compare with other Departments? It is a high take up, given that the Taoiseach does not have a huge number of staff, apart from all the advisers and media professionals at his elbow. Have the staff been transferred? If not, when will the transfers be effected?
It is a fair number of staff. My Department is not large, employing approximately 232 staff, and 42 represents a significant proportion of the overall number. I do not have the figures for other Departments but some people are opting to leave Dublin while others, who are in the regions, are opting for other regional locations. More than 8,500 expressions of interest were received but many of those were from people in the regions seeking to move to other regional locations. The number of applicants in my Department under the programme is high and the number of applicants has increased in most Departments with the passage of time.
Have many been transferred?
Nobody has been transferred.
It is well over a year since decentralisation was suddenly sprung on us during the Budget Statement as an election ploy. However, it is taking a long time.
The question refers to the Taoiseach's Department.
When will the desire of the 42 staff in the Taoiseach's Department to be transferred be effected?
The staff would like to move as soon as possible but, while it is 17 months since the announcement, three separate reports have been conducted and a fourth is due. The sites on the early list have been located and the staff involved will want to move. Some of my staff move whenever vacancies arise in existing locations but few arise each year. However, every year a small number of staff is transferred. Last week a number of Departments announced the locations of their offices and the location of other sites is in train in several parts of the country.
Will the staff be replaced in the Department of the Taoiseach or will staff be transferred from other areas of the Civil Service? Has a new chairman of the implementation committee been appointed? If so, who? To whom will he or she report? For example, will he or she report to a cross-departmental committee or a Minister? What reporting arrangements apply to the implementation committee?
All the staff must be replaced by civil servants of a similar grade from other Departments who do not wish to decentralise. Mr. Finbarr Flood has taken over the chair of the decentralisation implementation group and reports to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen.
What mix of grades comprises the 42 people? Are people with skills particular to the Department of the Taoiseach being lost? Professional grades are experiencing difficulties, being told to either move "or else". I do not know how people with such technical or professional skills can be accommodated elsewhere in the Civil Service.
The mix is composed of six assistant principal officers, nine administrative officers, four higher executive officers, 11 executive officers, three staff officers and nine clerical officers. I accept the point about the professional grades. While it is not relevant to my Department in this instance, it was when the Central Statistics Office was decentralised to Cork in June 1991. Some considerable time was spent on this issue while I was the Minister for Finance due to the professional and senior people who were relocating and I am sure this will happen again. The difficult issues must be resolved in discussion and consultation with the relevant trade unions of the elements of the professional and technical streams that wish to remain in Dublin, which is primarily IMPACT in this situation.
How many of the staff moving from the Department of the Taoiseach have been offered promotion? Have any departmental staff declined to move due to family, school or social contacts? In general, pressure is apparently being applied to public servants. If they move from a Department, they may achieve promotion but if they do not move, they are stuck.
The situation in my Department is somewhat simpler as no section of its work is to be decentralised. No one is under pressure to leave and any who leave wish to do so. It is obviously different in other Departments. The issues relating to volunteers are being dealt with as part of the implementation process. They must be discussed and agreed with the public service unions. Possible options include redeployment to other Departments or voluntarily filling vacancies in any Dublin-based non-commercial State organisation that would otherwise be filled by open recruitment. In the case of staff who do not wish to join the Civil Service or decentralise with their current agencies, civil servants who volunteer for decentralisation could be considered to fill the vacant roles. There is a mix of ideas and options, for which the central applications facility is allowing. It has not been difficult for anyone in my Department who has left to be promoted.
I listened carefully and with interest to what the Taoiseach had to say. When he mentioned that 42 staff from his Department are offering to decentralise, is this a reduction in numbers on the reply he gave the House in February when I noted the number of staff as 45? That amounts to approximately 20% of his Department. Does the Taoiseach expect an increase or further decrease in this number? In his Department's monthly report to the Cabinet on its own decentralisation process, has the timetable for implementation changed in light of the Taoiseach's experiences?
That does not arise in this context.
I am referring to the Taoiseach's experience in his Department. I understand that the Ceann Comhairle is strict in these matters so I am endeavouring not to stray from the salient point, even though it is tempting to do so. I ask about the Taoiseach's own Department and the implementation group under Mr. Finbarr Flood. Does the Taoiseach deem the costs to his Department to include reimbursements to staff for relocating? A precedent may have been set in the case of Teagasc staff who moved to Carlow and were given a €15,000 commuting payment. Does the Taoiseach consider that a payment such as that would apply to his staff or would it become part of the €90 million total cost of decentralisation?
There is no payment system in place and any questions arising on that issue will be discussed with the trade unions. There is no scheme at present and I do not envisage one being set up. I do not have the figure for transfer applications for February, but if Deputy Sargent maintains that it is 45, the explanation is that there are always a number of people in any Department who are moving anyway. They are on lists for relocation or decentralisation. I know of an individual in my Department, for example, who has just moved to Cork.
In terms of final numbers, the central applications facility list is still open and people in various Departments are moving on and off that list all the time. It would not remain the same. People change their minds.
Is there a Cabinet sub-committee dealing with decentralisation? If there is no such sub-committee, would the Taoiseach consider putting one in place, given the complexities of what is proposed within his Department and in all other Departments, especially in the context of the crossover between Departments whereby people will seek relocation and, therefore, transfer between Departments. Is there an individual in the Taoiseach's Department charged with liaising with other Departments regarding the overall decentralisation project? If there is no Cabinet sub-committee dealing with this issue, can the Taoiseach indicate how the overall programme is being co-ordinated?
At the outset there was a Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the issues, composed mainly of personnel from the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works as well as a number of other relevant Departments. Since the decentralisation implementation group was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Finbarr Flood, it has been co-ordinating the project and dealing with various Ministers. Property acquisitions and related issues are being dealt with by the Office of Public Works. Staffing issues are being dealt with by the personnel management, PSMD, section of the Department of Finance, while a separate group is dealing with the senior officials who are moving. The Secretary General of my Department is involved with that senior personnel group. They are the main elements that are driving and co-ordinating the decentralisation project.
The implementation group publishes progress reports periodically. There were three such reports last year and another one is due this summer.
Air Services.
Ceisteanna (5, 6, 7, 8)
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met. [15223/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met and when the next meeting is due. [16046/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met and the number and dates of meetings it has held in 2005. [16178/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the future of Aer Lingus last met. [16995/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (90 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met on 9 December 2004 and there are no arrangements for it to meet again.
The Government has announced a decision to put our national airline into the hands of speculators. I find this decision incredible. Can the Taoiseach explain why the Cabinet sub-committee on the national airline has not met since December 2004? Can he tell me where the privatisation of Aer Lingus was discussed?
It is not possible to have a debate on a matter covered by Cabinet confidentiality.
Is it then possible to ask about the methods used by the Cabinet to arrive at decisions?
It is not possible to do so arising from these questions. Deputy Higgins's question is purely statistical and poses a problem for the Chair, as it does for the Deputy. It would be better if these questions were submitted to the line Minister who would be in a position to deal with policy issues. This is a purely statistical question and it does not allow latitude to the Chair or the Deputy.
I know the Chair is interpreting the rules but I must state that Taoiseach's Question Time is becoming increasingly meaningless.
The Deputy can ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus last met.
That is the only question that will be allowed.
The other questions are appropriate to a line Minister. We cannot have an omnibus Taoiseach's Question Time.
Aer Lingus is very important.
There is an urgent need to review the rules governing Taoiseach's Question Time.
It poses a problem for the Chair as well as the Deputy.
The same few narrow questions are revamped here every three months. The terms of reference of the questions and supplementaries we can ask are extremely narrow. It is becoming repetitious.
When the House wishes to change the system, the Chair will be glad to implement it.
We should change the system because I will stop attending Taoiseach's Question Time if it is reduced to an irrelevancy. Maybe the Taoiseach would not mind that.
Could the Chair tell me how Deputy Higgins's question is statistical?
It seeks to find out the dates of meetings.
No, it does not.
If Deputy Rabbitte reads the question, he will see that this is true.
The question asks when the Cabinet sub-committee last met.
That is a statistical question.
This has nothing to do with matters like export figures or the CSO. Whatever it is, it is not a statistical question.
It is looking for one specific answer, which is the date on which the Cabinet sub-committee met.
One could say that about any question, that it is looking for one specific answer.
No, that is not true.
It is a stratagem used by Deputy Higgins to ask a question on the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus and it most emphatically is not a statistical question.
As the Chair pointed out, it poses a problem for the Chair as well as the Deputy.
It may well pose a problem for the Chair.
In my view, questions where policy is discussed, if it is the Department of the Taoiseach——
I am merely rising on the narrow point that whatever it is, it is not a statistical question.
I take it that the question is not statistical but it demands one answer which is just the date of the meetings.
On a point of order, while the Chair is interpreting the rules and I respect his ruling, can he tell me why a question similar to the other questions I posed was ruled out of order because it apparently contained the phrase "and if the Taoiseach will make a statement on the matter"? The Taoiseach made a very curt statement on the matter and I cannot understand why my question was ruled out of order as it was as narrowly focused as the other questions, except that it contained the phrase I have just quoted. Surely, the Chair's ruling that the question was out of order overstepped the mark and the question should have been allowed.
Normally, I would not discuss matters of this nature on the floor of the House. I would instead deal with it in the office. However, I studied Deputy Sargent's question yesterday and it asked for a report of the meeting of the sub-committee, rather than just asking the Taoiseach to make a statement on the matter. These questions refer specifically to the date of the sub-committee meeting. Deputy Sargent's question asked for a report on what was discussed at the meeting; that could not be allowed.
I would have been happy to delete those words.
That was the question the Deputy submitted.
I wish to finish my question. Does the Taoiseach accept that we find it incredible that a meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus has not taken place since December 2004, given that such an enormous decision to privatise a national airline has been taken? Will the Taoiseach scotch the rumour that a grubby deal was brokered between himself and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions that secured ICTU's toleration of the privatisation of Aer Lingus in return for the public ownership of the new terminal at Dublin Airport?
That question does not arise. The Taoiseach on the first question on the Cabinet sub-committee.
Regarding the first question, all the matters after that were dealt with by the full Cabinet. The Minister for Transport made it clear to the House last week that he and the Minister for Finance will move quickly to appoint advisers and deal with the issues. This was dealt with at the Cabinet. There is no need for the sub-committee. It had a job to do and it dealt with it. The matter has moved on and the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Finance are dealing with it.
Was this deal a rumour?
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
The Taoiseach's silence betokens what?
Safe play.
I am sure I will have the Chair's support in asking a statistical question. When was it decided to sell a majority stake in Aer Lingus?
That does not arise under these questions, Deputy. You should submit a separate question.
I asked for a date, a Cheann Comhairle. You said a date is a statistical matter.
The Deputy should not misconstrue what the Chair stated.
The Taoiseach has told us that the Cabinet sub-committee last met on 19 December. I am asking if the decision was taken by then or if it was taken subsequently. When was the decision taken?
It was made by the Cabinet as part of the overall decision of two weeks ago.
In arriving at that conclusion on that date and in respect of that decision, is it a trade sale or an initial public offering?
It does not arise under this question.
The Taoiseach wants to answer.
It happened on that date, a Cheann Comhairle.
We cannot discuss what might have happened on the date. The questions only ask about the dates, unfortunately.
The Chair is a great man for quoting precedent. Has he considered his time as a humble Deputy questioning Ministers and how he got away with it?
The same way as you occasionally get away with it.
The Chair knows as well as I do that the Taoiseach wishes to answer this question. The Chair is being over-restrictive in confining questions to his version of statistics.
The Chair must be consistent and must take account of the rules of the House and of precedent.
Yes, and as Deputy Higgins and Deputy Rabbitte——
As I said to Deputy Joe Higgins, this type of question does not suit the Chair either. Every time there is a question of this nature, Deputies wish to discuss policy. Such questions should be submitted to the line Minister.
I am sure when the Chair discusses the statistics of a Cavan v. Tyrone match, he talks more about the events surrounding those statistics than about the statistics themselves.
It does not arise under these questions.
Arising from the statistic the Taoiseach has given us, is this an initial public offering or a trade sale?
The Taoiseach is ready to answer. Go ahead, Taoiseach, be brave.
I will respond briefly. The Minister for Finance has moved to appoint advisers to advise on the size, type and timing of the sale. The decision on the process will be based on the advice that is given. Other than our statement that we will hold 25%, how we proceed will be based on the outside advisers' recommendation. The timing for proceeding will be decided in conjunction with the board.
Now, a Cheann Comhairle, was there a problem with that?
Given that the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus has not met during 2005 and that the Cabinet made the decision on Aer Lingus and Dublin Airport a fortnight ago, what function does the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus perform? What relevance does it have? Does the Taoiseach envisage it having a role in the future? Will it have a function in implementing the Cabinet decision to sell the State's majority shareholding in Aer Lingus? Will its deliberations be brought before the Cabinet and, whatever decision is arrived at and by whatever vehicle, will they be brought before the House before being processed? Did the plan for Aer Lingus and Dublin Airport emanate from the Cabinet sub-committee on Aer Lingus? Did the sub-committee have any deliberations on this matter, either at its December 2004 meeting or at earlier meetings? Is it the case, as the Taoiseach's response suggests, that it has no relevance to the issue and its central raison d’être?
The Deputy must understand that a Cabinet committee is sometimes established to deal with a particular aspect of a decision. In this case, it dealt with a Goldman Sachs' report and related issues. As soon as that issue was dealt with, the committee ended. The Cabinet dealt with everything else. When the report comes back from the Departments of Finance and Transport, it will be dealt with at Cabinet.
So it is finished. It is over.
The work of the Cabinet sub-committee took three or four weeks. The sub-committee is not in existence, and will not be unless we need to revive it for some other purpose. The full Cabinet is dealing with all of the issues.
What of the position in regard to the State's majority shareholding? Is that such a recent——
The full Cabinet will make the decision.
I am very interested in the Taoiseach's reply. As 9 December 2004 is given as the date of the final meeting, I wonder whether any business was conducted at the meeting other than a Christmas drink. Was it envisaged that the sub-committee would need to meet again in any form? Was it envisaged that it would address the question of why the Government seems ideologically opposed to investing in Aer Lingus, although it is investing in so many other airlines through the national pensions reserve fund?
Is there a need to revisit this issue? The Taoiseach should indicate that the sub-committee should meet again, perhaps in conjunction with the National Pensions Reserve Fund, to ascertain where money is being invested on behalf of the taxpayer in airlines other than Aer Lingus, including Ryanair, and why Aer Lingus seems to be regarded as not worthy of investment but of being sold off to whatever sharks will try to make money out of it. The sub-committee needs to meet again as its work is far from finished, and it has left a very unfortunate legacy.
There are no arrangements for it to meet again and all issues related to this matter are now being dealt with by the full Cabinet.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, are you telling the House that when the Taoiseach tells us that this decision was taken in Cabinet — the Government acting qua government — we may not ask the Head of Government about the decision in question?
The Deputy is well aware of what one is allowed to ask. This was a statistical question. It asked for the date of a meeting and that is all it asked. The Chair cannot allow questions that are not on the Order Paper.
Since questions began to be asked in the House, one is permitted to put so much into a question and it is no more than a peg to set out why one is seeking to extract information from Government. With respect, it has never been judged in the restrictive fashion in which you are judging this question. To describe a question about Aer Lingus——
I cannot accept that. If Deputies do not like the Standing Orders for questions as they are, I suggest they change them. I will be glad to implement them.
With respect, sir, it is your interpretation of the Standing Orders——
No, Deputy, it is not my interpretation-——
To say that a question on a Cabinet sub-committee is a statistical question is wrong.
The question is quite specific. If we were to do what the Deputy wishes, the Taoiseach would answer for every line Minister at Taoiseach's Question Time. A Deputy could put down a question on anything discussed at a Cabinet sub-committee and have a full debate on it for three-quarters of an hour. That has never been the position in this House. I act in accordance with the actions of my predecessors. All questions are scrutinised coming in to the office.
On a point of order, that is not necessarily true. I and others have recent experience of line Ministers refusing to answer a question and it being disallowed and referred to the Department of the Taoiseach. We have also had recent experience of tabling a question to a line Minister who refused to answer the question on the basis of not being responsible to the House and having the Minister to whom it was referred return it unanswered on the basis that it was not his or her responsibility to answer. There are issues which must be dealt with.
The matter has nothing to do with the office of the Ceann Comhairle.
I accept that. However, the Ceann Comhairle should examine the matter carefully because questions arise. Today's Order Paper contains questions which have been referred to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The matter is discussed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chair has no control over the matter.
He just dozes off occasionally.
The last four questions tabled by Deputy Rabbitte referred to the Cabinet sub-committee. Confidentiality is a constitutional requirement in respect of Cabinet sub-committees which further limits the House in how it deals with such questions.
That is a restrictive regime.
There is no restriction on asking about Cabinet decisions, although there may be constitutional considerations in terms of discussions that took place in reaching the decision.
There is a further restriction on the nature of replies to the type of questions to which the Deputy refers.
National Economic and Social Council.
Ceisteanna (9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Joe Higgins
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the studies being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15228/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the current work programme of the National Economic and Social Council. [16048/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the activities of the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16996/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18085/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraTrevor Sargent
Ceist:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the studies being carried out by the National Economic and Social Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18322/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (11 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, together.
The National Economic and Social Council has completed its study entitled A Developmental Welfare State, which was published on 19 May. The council completed its report, Housing in Ireland: Performance and Policy, in December 2004 and will complete a report on the Lisbon Agenda in the coming months, focusing on the open method of co-ordination. It will also undertake its three-yearly strategic overview of Irish economic and social policy, paving the way to negotiations on a successor to Sustaining Progress. Other studies in the council work programme include migration policy, child poverty and child income supports, Ireland's first periodic social report, the taxation system in the medium term, competition regulation in the network sectors and a report on innovation foresight.
The work programme for the National Economic and Social Council for 2003 to 2006 provided for nine reports on significant issues. The Taoiseach indicated that the council has completed reports on social welfare and housing, which I did not see on the original list, as well as one other. The council seems to be slow in coming forward with its reports. What is the status of some of the other planned reports, particularly that on migration policy, which would appear quite urgent, and the taxation system in the medium term? Is there a timescale for these and the remaining reports which formed part of the work programme?
The council will complete the report on the Lisbon strategy and the open method of co-ordination over the next number of months. It is undertaking its three-yearly strategic overview of the Irish economy and social policy, which is a large report and is used as the basis for negotiations on the three-year programmes. I do not have dates for the other reports. The council is working on migration policy, child poverty and child income supports and the periodic social report. The report on the taxation system in the medium term is nearing completion. I do not have dates for the reports on competition regulation in network systems or on innovation foresight, but most of the work is ongoing at present.
Will the Taoiseach expand on the process that is followed when the NESC makes a report on a particular subject? Is the report left lying ignored on a shelf or is there a structured process that takes account of the findings, recommendations and thinking in such a report? How is it imported into public policy?
The process is that when it is passed by the NESC it is cleared by the Government. In the case of most reports there would be a discussion at that stage by Government. They would then go to the relevant Department or Departments. Taxation reports would go to the Department of Finance and education reports to the Department of Education and Science. The reports on the broad economy and social policy cover a number of Ministries and usually would be used as the basis for the talks process — practically every Department is involved in that. In some cases Departments recommend legislation. Other times it is included in social welfare Bills and other legislation. It is normal for Departments to report back on the process. In many cases, as in the national infrastructure reports, they may attend some of the Cabinet sub-committee meetings and discussions would be held on some of the issues. That is where they have done work for the process, as they did for the national plan. That would not take place in the case of a normal report but only if they had done work on it. Other reports on improvement of services are followed up by the relevant Department.
In the normal course of events — I cannot say without exception — there is an active link between the NESC work and the Departments. A number of Departments would use it for the basis of much of their own action because they see it as work that helps them, such as the developmental welfare state report, which I am aware is being actively examined and was the source of a conference held some weeks ago attended by people from many Departments and agencies. They will now deal with their own aspects of the report and there is normally follow up on those.
The Taoiseach mentioned the developmental welfare state report by the NESC. That report states that the welfare state by EU standards uses a moderate to low proportion of national resources in providing services and a low proportion in providing cash transfers. It goes on to state that some of that is due to sections of the Irish population not enjoying the standards of social protection which their counterparts in other countries enjoy. Does the Taoiseach agree with that conclusion of the report? Does he agree that despite being one of the richest countries economically in the world, we remain one of the most unequal countries? Does he concede that, as the NESC points out, the high level of means-testing puts this country's social welfare system in the shade when compared to a number of those of our European counterparts?
I do not agree it is unequal. There are countries in Europe that are high contributors to the social welfare system. If we look at the charts and compare what we pay and what we fund, we would be termed a high contributor but not high in terms of the taxation level. It is correct that means tests apply to many issues.
I cannot comment on the detail of the other point, although I attended the launch of the report and spoke on it. The report provides a revised account of where the Irish welfare system has come from and identifies that social deficits remain, despite the remarkable progress we have made. It recasts the social debate in such a way as to build consensus in terms of trying to improve the system for the future. That is what it endeavours to do. It highlights the existing deficits and areas where we could be more fair and reasonable. The Tánaiste has picked up on some of these already in the method of social care provision and disposable income. That issue moves away from the strict barrier of the means-tested arrangements and other countries use such a method.
A number of themes are identified, namely, that we should bring the same determination and innovation to social policy as we did to economic success. That is something with which I agree. If we put in the same effort we will remove many of the inequalities that exist in the system. We have done a great deal of that over recent years, such as the pre-1953 social insurance scheme. This was a major problem that has been eliminated.
The report also highlights improvements in services as the single most important route to enhancing social protection. It also deals with many of the profit and non-profit sectors. It sets out a scope and it is to feed into the social partnership process, to examine some of these areas, and to feed into the social welfare process. It is a very useful report in that it considers the deficits as well as the positive aspects of the country. I accept there are deficits and these are highlighted in the report.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions.
In that grouping I have not had the opportunity to ask the Taoiseach——
It is now 3.17 p.m.
There were two Deputies in that grouping and we should have been accommodated with at least one brief question at the end. To be completely excluded is grossly unfair.