Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 2010

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

Deputies will be aware of the recent Government decision to amalgamate the three constituent bodies of the National Economic and Social Development Office by absorbing the National Economic and Social Forum, NESF, and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, NCPP, into the National Economic and Social Council, NESC.

The two bodies have been dissolved with effect from 1 April 2010 by orders which have been made under section 34 of the National Economic and Social Development Office Act 2006. During this year, the NESC will further adapt its work programme to ensure that appropriate aspects of the work of the NESF and NCPP are continued, while focusing on economic and social aspects of the ongoing crisis, including support for those who have lost their jobs, as well as on completion of its report on the role of the European Union in Ireland's economic and social development.

The NESC has embarked on a new study of Ireland's services to the unemployed and active labour market policies. In addition, the council is beginning work on two other projects, namely, economic restructuring and enterprise adjustment in the crisis and service quality and provision in constrained public budgets.

Following the dissolution of the two bodies, the National Economic and Social Development Office continues as the statutory agency that employs all staff and provides all administration and support services for the NESC, and submits to Government all reports, recommendations and conclusions arising from any projects carried out by the NESC. It also arranges for the publication of such items. The director of the NESC is also the chief officer of the NESDO.

Under the legislation it is possible in the future, if the Government so decides, that other bodies could be created within the NESDO framework without the need for separate administrative support. This is a useful facility which can remain available to this and future Governments. Its continuation gives rise to no substantive additional costs beyond those of the NESC itself.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. As I have indicated before, the NESF produced a series of extremely useful reports over the years which were always intended to inform the policy making of Government. Having taken significant guidance from several of the reports produced, I believe that they have stood the test of time. I am thinking in particular of the 2002 report on the health services which stated that structural change in the delivery of services was absolutely necessary. That was specifically to address the two-tier public-private health system in the acute hospital network. Most significantly, this particular NESF report indicated that the system was left unchanged in the Government's health strategy.

Clearly, despite the fact that the NESF reports were intended to inform policy making, the Government has chosen to ignore them time and again. They still stand the test of time, however, and have a currency and relevance for the future. I have two questions. Given that the specific report, which is just a sample of the range produced, showed that there was a far greater private use of public hospitals in this jurisdiction than in any other EU member state, as well as the unfavourable level of inequity relative to all other member states in access to first referral for consultant appointments for public as against private patients, what does the Government intend to do with the NESF's body of work over all those years? What is the situation in relation to the reports produced by the NESF and the recommendations contained therein? With the passage of time it has been consistently demonstrated that the Government failed to take on board the recommendations, at the public's cost in real terms.

I take note of what the Taoiseach has said in his reply, but will the NESC now fulfil the same role as the NESF? Will it carry out required research and make recommendations to Government in relation to social and economic policy across all the policy areas that affect the daily lives of our citizens?

The Deputy's questions are detailed ones about the contents of reports, which may be better put to the line Ministers concerned. I do not have a detailed knowledge of all the reports referred to. However, I will make the general point that the purpose of the change in the consultants' contract is to ensure that the availability of consultant staff is properly monitored and that the service is consultant-provided rather than consultant-led. This means that people are entitled to see their consultants, regardless of whether they are public or private patients, on the basis of medical need. The changes in the contract were to ensure those contractual commitments were adhered to.

I commend the work done by the National Economic and Social Forum, which for many years was a good collaborative and participative forum under the chairmanship of Maureen Gaffney. It covered a whole range of social policy as well as economic areas. Many of its reports served a purpose in terms of providing a voice for those who are members of the forum and also, as part of the social partnership process, feeding into policy formulation and the various strands that exist in this regard. I cannot be more specific than that. Questions about the recommendations of specific reports should be forwarded to the line Ministers concerned.

I agree with the Taoiseach that the work of the NESF was indeed invaluable. However, my concern is now about what will be done with the body of work it produced over the years. I am particularly interested in the area of health and children, but across all subjects the Government has sadly ignored much of what the NESF has commended to it in terms of policy direction. The Taoiseach mentioned the consultants' contract. Sadly, any Dáil Deputy, including those on the Government back benches, will be able to tell him that we have nothing but a plethora of difficulties in terms of access to consultants in the public health system by ordinary people who are dependent on medical cards. The waiting times for first appointments are outrageous. In real terms, there has been no difference in the vast majority of cases that are brought to my attention on a weekly basis, including as recently as yesterday. It is all very well——

——and it is important that Government takes up this issue.

The last question in my opening engagement with the Taoiseach was about the role of the National Economic and Social Council. I ask again for clarification. Is it intended that the NESC will continue the work that hitherto had been done by the NESF, including research and the recommendation of specific policy directions across all key areas related to the social and economic condition of society?

The NESC was the first of the bodies established back in 1973 as an advisory body to the Government on economic and social matters. Its mandate was to analyse and report on strategic issues relating to the efficient development of the economy, the achievement of social progress and the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of negotiations and agreements between Governments and social partners. The role of the NESC will not change considerably following the dissolution of the NESF and the NCPP. The particular experience and expertise of the staff of those two bodies who are now working within the NESC secretariat will add further dimensions to NESC's traditional role of policy analysis by facilitating greater exploration of the challenges of policy implementation and, where appropriate, the study of the employment relations dimension of both economic development and public sector transformation. The secretariats that have served the NESF and the NCPP will continue to work within the NESC.

First there was one body, the NESC, which was, as the Taoiseach said, set up in 1973 and has produced a large number of reports over the years. Then there was the NESF, which has done great work, and then the partnership body, the NCPP. The National Economic and Social Development Office was then set up to co-ordinate these three bodies and provide shared services for them. Next, the Government decided it would amalgamate the three former bodies into one by absorbing the NESF and the NCPP into the NESC. However, it left in place NESDO. Thus, we now have one body, the NESC, and one body to co-ordinate it, NESDO. When the then Minister of State, Deputy Carey, was introducing this legislation in the House he told us that NESDO was being left in place in case the Government decided to create any other bodies and that it would be necessary to have a co-ordinating body in place should the Government decide to create another body under its remit.

What is now the function of NESDO, since there is now only one body to co-ordinate? How many staff does it have and how much does it cost? The Minister of State said, when introducing the arrangement, that he expected further savings to arise in future years as a result of the amalgamation. Can the Taoiseach give us some indication of what those savings are?

I note there are five Secretaries General on the NESC council. Does the Taoiseach consider that the presence of such a large number of Secretaries General compromises the role of the NESC, particularly when it comes to providing critical examination of the delivery of programmes by the State sector?

It was about the presence of five Secretaries General on the council of NESC, one of the roles of which is to consider and evaluate the performance of Departments. Does the Taoiseach feel that the presence of such a large number of Secretaries General compromises the organisation in carrying out critical evaluation of the way in which the State sector is delivering services and programmes?

The Deputy has a view that with five Secretaries General around the table, nobody can open his or her mouth. However, the Secretaries General bring the input of their departmental work to the table. There are other members of the NESC, independent of these, who are quite capable of putting across their own points of view. Out of that an accurate picture emerges. Without some sort of departmental input, we might not obtain an accurate analysis. As always in such cases, there is a requirement to know what is happening in an operational sense and a requirement to know what needs to be done arising from this and what changes should be recommended.

There may be an idea that there is a repository of wisdom outside the public service and that these people can come in and tell the public service how it should be run — or, alternatively, that the monopoly of wisdom is within the public service and people outside do not know what they are talking about — but neither of these is true. This is not the best way to provide a policy analysis. We need a rigorous objective and challenging analysis, but we also need an input that explains the present situation and the constraints. Which service delivery mechanisms are causing problems and where are there pressures on services? How can this be changed? How are Departments interacting with each other? How do we better co-ordinate the governmental system? There is a fair amount of institutional memory and expertise to be brought to the table to deal with all of this.

In terms of portraying people as too compliant or too indifferent because of the presence of certain others, neither point of view is correct. One might ask whether less is better. I do not know the answer but there is a reason for their involvement and NESC has always been able to come forward with substantive, balanced and informed reports. The presence of people who are of the system and those who come from outside it probably contributes to an analysis of where change is necessary and, more importantly, how it can be achieved.

In regard to grant-in-aid and the retention of NESDO, there was no substantive increase over and above the cost of NESC. Under the legislation, it will be possible in the future to create other bodies within this framework if the Government so decides. The retention of the framework does not incur substantive costs and it is available to ensure co-ordination in the event of other bodies being required. We believe it is prudent to leave it in place under the legislation given that there are no substantive additional costs beyond those of NESC itself.

The Department Estimate for 2010 in respect of these activities is €3.854 million. This represents a decrease of €1.205 million over the 2009 Estimate. The savings on the non-pay side have arisen mainly as a result of savings on rent. The dissolution of the forum and the NCPP has made it possible to reduce the accommodation required. Additional savings will arise in 2010 as a result of this decision but these are largely offset by once-off establishment costs for the enlarged NESC. However, further savings are likely to be made from efficiency improvements in the years ahead as the decision is implemented. Overall, NESDO employs 20.4 whole time equivalent staff, broken into areas including the director, various social policy analysts and senior economists. The existing employees of the forum and the NCPP have been given the option of transferring to NESC, which will maintain certain aspects of their work programmes.

I refer the Taoiseach to the last report of NESC, which issued in October. Among the observations made in that report on the state of the economy was that Ireland's tax burden remains significantly below the European Union average and that an increase in the tax share of GNP from 2009 levels will be needed to provide satisfactory public services and welfare benefits. That recommendation flies in the face of what I understand has been Government policy for some time. What consideration has the Government given to this report and, in particular, NESC's recommendations on taxation?

The Deputy will be aware from last year's supplementary budget that there has been a fair increase in income tax levels and impositions on income earners as a result of the need to close the gap between expenditure and revenue. At a time of fragile economic recovery, we are doing as much as we can to protect and maintain jobs and increase competitiveness. Over the longer term, that will involve expenditure savings and the budgetary policy for this has been outlined to and agreed with the European Commission.

Tax takes are a higher percentage of GNP or GDP in continental countries and the demographics are also different. At the time when there was growth in this economy, growth rates in those countries were not as great as we achieved in Ireland. Mr. Trichet and others have looked to the model we tried to progress in terms of maintaining low tax rates on income as one of the ways by which employment growth could be encouraged. The wider issue that arises of expanding the tax base over time has been considered by the Commission on Taxation. We have to look to that as a means of finding a sustainable way forward in light the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. The issue has to be carefully considered in the context of those recommendations.

In view of the many fine reports produced by NESC over the years, a number of which concerned the quality of our public services, I ask the Taoiseach to update us on the current status of the Croke Park deal. Many of the public services that the public expect are not being provided because of the industrial difficulty. This is clearly impacting on people who did not cause the economic and fiscal difficulties we now face. Would the Taoiseach like to comment on that matter?

These matters are beyond the remit of the questions but I will make the general point that they are being considered and ballots are being organised on the draft agreement drawn up in Croke Park. I believe it provides the best way forward and I would like everybody to share the view that industrial strife and continuing problems in that area will do nothing for job security or income stability in the medium or longer term. The implementation of the agreement will give us the means by which we can provide people with a period of stability and an opportunity for trade union representatives to participate in the transformation of public services which everyone agrees is necessary and urgent.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.

I sit on the following Cabinet Committees: European affairs; climate change and energy security; science, technology and innovation; social inclusion, children and integration; health; Irish and the Gaeltacht; economic renewal; and transforming public services.

The necessity for and the roles and working methods of Cabinet committees are kept under review. Their primary function is to allow for engagement by Ministers with important policy issues of cross-departmental significance. They are supplementary to the engagement with these issues by the Government as a whole. Significant policy issues in all of these areas are matters for decision by the Government in accordance with the Cabinet handbook.

For the information of Deputies, the table lists all Cabinet committees and their membership following the recent changes of Ministers and Ministers of State.

Which Cabinet committee deals with banking, the financial institutions, the State guarantee and NAMA? Would the Taoiseach accept that given the huge sums of public money poured into the financial institutions, it is not unreasonable for people to believe he who pays the piper should call the tune? We have learned, however, that the Minister for Finance approved the top-up to the pension arrangements for the CEO of Bank of Ireland. The Taoiseach personally defended that decision in the Dáil last week. What Cabinet committee is addressing these matters?

Major strategic decisions are being taken on an almost daily basis, certainly in the recent past, by the Minister for Finance, yet there is no clear indication as to where is the prior engagement in this regard in terms of the collective responsibility of Cabinet. Without breaching Cabinet confidentiality, all of which I understand, will the Taoiseach give the Chamber an indication as to which committee is taking the overview and oversight responsibility along with the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach vis-à-vis the issues that are unfolding daily regarding banking, the financial institutions, the State guarantee and NAMA?

On a second matter, which Cabinet committee is tasked with addressing the issue of the promised referendum on the rights of children? Is it the case that there is a special Cabinet committee that deals with all referenda proposals or is it a particular Cabinet committee that deals with the particular remit of the referendum focus? For example, in terms of children's rights being placed in the referendum, would that come under a Cabinet committee dealing with health and children? Will the Taoiseach clarify this point?

Is there a Cabinet committee with responsibility for employment policy and strategy? We have all noted with some alarm that there is no longer a Department, a Minister or a Minister of State in whose title the word "employment" appears as a result of the Taoiseach's recent reshuffle. The word "employment" is crucial. Is it the case, as I have already inquired, that there are a raft of Cabinet committees addressing the issue of employment and that it has been piecemealed out in regard to specific sectors under the different Cabinet committees' roles and responsibilities?

Would the Taoiseach agree that, in regard to employment in particular, there should be a specified, stand-alone, dedicated Cabinet committee, given the serious situation this economy is facing today, with growing numbers of young people being offered only the dole queue or the emigrant flight or boat? Surely we should have a dedicated Cabinet committee dealing with all of the issues in regard to fighting unemployment, devising strategies to protect and save jobs and, very importantly, creating new ones.

No. On the issue raised by the Deputy regarding employment, the Cabinet committee on economic renewal would deal with all of the major issues in the economic area. Much detail is dealt with in the Cabinet, such as the detail on the banking institutions. From time to time, a related issue may arise at a Cabinet committee but, at the end of the day, Cabinet discusses the ultimate issues. These committees are called together where there are cross-sectoral issues that need to be resolved and discussed, and where policy decisions need to be co-ordinated. Then, as a result of discussion at committee, a proposal is brought forward to Cabinet for decision. That is the position.

With regard to the question on the referendum on children, as I said in the House yesterday on the Order of Business, the Minister of State with special responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, is at present engaged with the various Departments arising out of the report of the Oireachtas committee, which, as I said, did some very good work, to see in what way that can be progressed with the Attorney General's office before coming to Cabinet with a considered proposal.

The Taoiseach has only referred to two of the three questions in his reply and they hardly measure up as replies, with all respect to him. A Cabinet committee on economic renewal does not address the concerns I have expressed in regard to the existing terrible reality of unemployment in our economy and the growing threat that daily presents. I am not convinced this demonstrates any resolve on the Government's part as it has already failed to present a strategy to sustain current employment, let alone create new employment.

With regard to children, we want to see the referendum on children's rights brought forward in the current year. I was a member of the committee that brought forward the report and recommendations to Government of a specific wording that we would be all be willing to row in behind and urge endorsement of by the electorate. I again ask about the issue of the referenda. The Taoiseach was asked these questions yesterday regarding whether a referendum or referenda would be held in the current year, and no decision has been reached. Is there any address of these issues? There are a number of possible referenda that need to be addressed, most particularly the one on children in the current year. Will the Taoiseach tell us if this is being addressed and by what committee?

The question the Taoiseach did not address at all is in regard to what Cabinet committee currently has responsibility for addressing all of the areas concerning banking, the financial institutions, the State guarantee and NAMA. This is a huge area. With respect, given the particular roles of the Minister for Finance, there is a concern that there needs to be some Cabinet grouping with which——

——the Minister would engage on a continuous basis. On the one hand, he is responsible for, hopefully, bringing about a sea change in terms of the conduct and governance of the financial institutions but, on the other, we only discovered by a slow extraction, worse than any dentist's operation, the information that he had actually approved Mr. Boucher's €1.5 million pension top-up. I repeat the question. Is there a Cabinet committee dealing with all of these matters? Does the Minister for Finance engage with that Cabinet committee? Will the Taoiseach be specific?

I have the answered the question. There seems to be an assumption in the Deputy's question that all aspects of Cabinet have to be doled out to every committee or that the committee covers all of the role of the Cabinet. The Cabinet meets weekly and it is the place where the decisions are taken. The function of Cabinet committees arises where there are policy issues to be discussed in preparation for Cabinet discussions, in finalising positions between Departments or where there are varying views between Departments that need to be heard, discussed and resolved, or where some political input is required to progress the issue and get it to Cabinet with a view to having an outcome that is a coherent decision — that is what the process is about. There are weekly Cabinet meetings and, from time to time, as work is required or an issue arises, a committee is called. We do not just have meetings for the sake of having them. We have them if there is an issue to be resolved, and they are in place for that purpose.

With regard to employment, I made the point to the Deputy that the Cabinet committee on economic renewal was established to focus on the key policies and programmes necessary to ensure an appropriate and cohesive response to the scale of the challenges facing the economy. Out of that emerged the Government's smart economy framework for sustainable economic renewal. The committee continues to oversee implementation of plans for a return to growth within the parameters of our five-year consolidation programme for restoring stability to the public finances.

With regard to banking matters, I have explained that those issues are dealt with in the main at Cabinet. There are issues that are ongoing on a daily, monthly and weekly basis. Cabinet meets every week and sometimes it meets twice a week, depending on what it is we have to discuss.

There is no Cabinet committee on banking. There is a Cabinet that deals with banking. The Cabinet has been making many big decisions, as the Deputy said. The existence or otherwise of a committee is neither here nor there in that respect. As to this idea that one farms out all the work to all the committees and brings it back in as if one is out collecting sheep and bringing them in at evening time, that is not the purpose of committees.

Which of the committees has dealt with the issue of the carbon levy? In particular, has that committee addressed the promise the Government made that it would introduce a special fuel allowance to assist pensioners and the 300,000-plus families on low incomes who were promised at the time of the budget that an allowance would be introduced before the carbon levy was introduced? The carbon levy on heating oil is being introduced on Saturday which mean an increase of 9% in the price of heating oil. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, yesterday issued a statement saying he will do something about an allowance next October. The problem is a large number of pensioners, particularly elderly people, will have to buy heating oil between now and in October and they were promised there would be an allowance.

Which of these committees has been dealing with the issue of the carbon levy and which of these committees has failed in its responsibility to bring forward the promised fuel allowance?

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the ghost housing estates all over the country, half-finished housing estates and empty houses that cannot be sold. NAMA is talking about demolishing some of these estates and dwellings. Has the housing committee been considering the issue of the ghost housing estates? Has there been any consideration given to how the so-called ghost housing estates——

——might address the problem of the numbers of people who are on local authority waiting lists, the provision of housing for returning emigrants and the need for sheltered accommodation for elderly people?

Has the health committee recently considered the Government's policy on co-location? The Taoiseach will recall this was the Minister for Health and Children's plan which she announced five years ago and which she said would fast-track the provision of hospital beds. Is the co-location policy dead or is it being actively considered by the health committee or by any other of the committees listed here?

The Deputy will be aware a statement was issued yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, with regard to the fuel issue and that statement outlines the Government's position which is being dealt with at Cabinet level.

With regard to the housing issue, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, has been actively engaged with local authorities on many occasions and has been recommending the option of leasing existing housing stock as a means of ensuring that councils can take up capacity where this is available and suitable. He has implemented various initiatives to take account of the new reality and to help local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities.

The health committee has been discussing the 2010 national service plan, finance and industrial issues, HSE restructuring and progress on the A Vision for Change strategy. There has been progress on specific matters regarding the capital programme but the financial situation has changed in respect of some of the private financing initiatives, the PPPs and co-location which is about ensuring we improve access for public patients and ensuring the hospital beds designated for public patients are given to them.

——that there would be a fuel allowance, a vouched fuel system introduced before the carbon levy. This was confirmed by the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, last February. The Government has now welched on that promise to the poorest households in the country. It is a disgrace. The Government is telling them they will have to wait.

A total of 300,000 households will have to wait until next October. The Government is telling people with empty oil tanks who, if last year is anything to go by, will have to go through a number of cold months between now and October, that they will not be able to buy heating oil until next October when this promise is delivered. That is scandalous.

The Taoiseach has talked in general terms about the work of the health committee. Is the Government going ahead with the co-location plan? Is the co-location plan dead in the water? We know — the Taoiseach has effectively acknowledged this in the House — that because of the changed economic circumstances the private finance does not now appear to be available for the planned co-located hospitals. Is the plan over? Will any of these co-located hospitals be built?

Those proposals are still being proceeded with. They have not been progressed as quickly as would have been the case in different financial circumstances. I do not have the detailed information to hand. I had the information with me on another occasion. I could update the Deputy as to the situation but a question to the Minister for Health and Children will obtain that information.

Since May 2008 the Cabinet committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs met once, the committee on science, technology and innovation met twice and the committee on social inclusion, children and integration met three times. In view of the changed portfolios of some of the members of the Cabinet, is it intended to change the membership and the structure of the committees?