Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps I will take the questions that have come from the Deputies and the sub-committee can go through the individual Votes at the end. I believe the normal procedure is that the Chairman would put the Votes individually. I will try to answer some of the questions that were raised.

Deputy Sean Fleming raised the question about Croke Park II. Clearly, the discussions and negotiations that are going on at present with the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission are sensitive. They are important in the context of the reputation of the country and the fact we have come such a long way under highly challenging conditions. As the Deputies are aware, the Government's position remains that €300 million in savings must be acquired this year, rising to €1 billion by 2015.

I was asked if that means there will be a different set of statistics in terms of the Vote of this Department or any other. Clearly, one must wait until the weekend to see what is the outcome. The Minister will be reported to by the chairman on Monday and he will give the Government his formal response and outlook on Tuesday at the Cabinet meeting. I suppose, technically speaking, if one were to say that there would be a change in the way that the €300 million is acquired from or through each of the Departments, it might mean that, but I hope that does not happen and that we can achieve the outcome.

On the abolition of the Seanad, Deputy Kevin Humphreys put his finger on an important issue here. In the past, there was always a situation where the Government of the day felt it appropriate to have an information campaign about whatever the issue might be. This applied in the case of the fiscal stability treaty where Government took a clear view that it was important that the citizens of the country should know what it was about and went ahead with an information campaign. In the case of the children's referendum, the position was followed, the High Court gave a view and the Supreme Court made its findings clear. As a result, there will not be any information campaign from the Government on the referendum for the abolition of the Seanad.

The €2.1 million is for the setting up of the Referendum Commission. When the Government decides that a referendum will be held, it, through the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, notifies the Chief Justice of the intention to hold a referendum and in this case the Chief Justice will in due course nominate a judge to chair that commission to deal with the mechanics of the referendum. The cost of the referendum will be borne by the sponsoring Department. In that sense, the Government fully complies here with the ruling of the Supreme Court.

As to whether this means that we should look at the question of the Crotty and McKenna judgments to which several Deputies referred, this is a tightly constrained situation on any Government. There are aspects of both McKenna and Crotty on which I have reflected in the past and to which I might return in the future, but in respect of this referendum we set up the commission for which there is €2.1 million, the Chief Justice will nominate whoever she considers appropriate to chair that commission, and it will go off and do its business.

Deputy Sean Fleming mentioned the Constitutional Convention. This was set up last year. It is independent in the way it goes about its business. As the committee will be aware, it is made up of public representatives and 66 citizens chosen at random through a reputable organisation. They, themselves, have displayed enormous enthusiasm for the work in which they have been involved.

On whether it is a talking shop, we committed to involve the citizens in this process and gave them a number of areas of suggested work that they should consider. The first three of these were to deal with the question of the voting age, the involvement of citizens in the presidency and the question of a reduction in the voting age of presidential candidates. The reason for those more simplified cases was to see how effectively the convention would work.

The Government agreed to respond within four months to a submitted report and that if the Government decided to accept any or all of the recommendations of any of the reports, it would respond and give an indicative timeline as to when a referendum would be held if it stated it agreed with recommendation X or Y.

The Constitutional Convention has submitted its first report to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. He will prepare a memorandum for Government based on the discussions and recommendations of the convention and the Government will make its decision, publish and have a discussion in the Dáil about it.

The second report in respect of the second body of work done by the convention will be submitted by July. That includes, for instance, the sensitive social issue of the question of gay marriage which was a mandate given to the convention to consider. That will be the subject of discussion by Government and response in respect of the second report submitted by the convention. There are other areas it is moving on to discuss, in respect of the electoral system, Dáil elections, etc. I might point out for members that prior to the setting up of the convention the Government took a clear position in respect of the question to be asked of the people about the abolition of the Seanad. That Bill is being prepared and will be published in the next matter of weeks.

Deputy Sean Fleming asked if there are reasons we should not adhere to the original agreement to exit the EU-IMF programme. We expect to exit the programme at the end of the year. This has been a very challenging time for the people of the country and I suppose, in practical terms, it is necessary to discuss with the troika, as both Ministers have been doing, how we can exit the programme safely and with whatever buffers may be provided in respect of unforeseen shocks that might happen internationally. Those discussions are ongoing but there is no reason to suggest that we would change from our commitment to exit the programme at the year end as we have eased ourselves by degree back into the international financial markets.

The cabinet committee on health meets every month. It meets again on Monday. It has met six or eight times this year. Clearly, the structures in the system that has operated in health for many years have required a direct focus from Government. Often the Minister and the Department and the HSE were at loggerheads and proceeding in different directions on similar issues and there was non-acceptance of responsibility by individual areas for sensitive sections of the health system which affects everybody. Some time ago I had a meeting with those dealing with ageing society. When one considers that many of the children being born in hospital this week will live 100 years and inside the next two decades it is expected that people will live to the age of 110 or 120 because of advances in medical sciences, this means that, with the world population expanding at an enormous rate, people will probably draw pensions for longer than they worked and the cost of treatment of medicine worldwide will increase proportionately. Health is as important to us in Ireland as to anyone else. Clearly, the initiative launched by Government in respect of the Presidency about well-being and health initiatives is important when one considers, for instance, as the Chairman will be aware from his medical profession, that we in Ireland face almost 0.25 million diabetics coming down the line in the next 20 years and 90% of this is preventable in terms of information, activity, diet, etc. In being able to deal with that, the saving to the country and to the people would be enormous.

As I stated, the Cabinet committee met eight times. It meets every month and meets again on Monday next. We must now consider issues such as the GP card and various other structures in health. I will deal with one of those questions that comes up later.

As I understand it, the relationship between the DPP, the CSSO and the State Claims Agency is a good working relationship. The CSSO provides solicitor services to the State Claims Agency in some cases. It is also used as external solicitors. It is a separate entity. It is under the Department of Finance. I think the relationships are fairly good. If there is something not working there, we would be happy to look at it.

I have felt for many years that in many cases - as perhaps members of the Bench, if one spoke to them, would say - that the biggest requirement in judicial analysis and decision is common sense. It is true that many cases are settled on the steps of the court and people would say afterwards, "Why could this not have been arrived at before we got this far?" Deputy Sean Fleming certainly has a point here. I note, for instance, that the cost of legal cases on child care last year was of the order of €25 million.

These are charged at hourly rates by barristers. One often wonders about the effectiveness of the scheme. We are examining it with the Cabinet committee on health at present.

I do not know what indicative value the Revenue Commissioners have put on the residential part of Áras an Uachtaráin. I am sure the information is in the possession of the Uachtarán or the staff, or would be if they clicked onto the local property tax website. Institutions are exempt, as the Deputy knows.

Deputy Stanley asked about the Labour Relations Commission. Mr. Kieran Mulvey is negotiating at present. I hope progress can be made but I know it is difficult. Some unions were for the deal and others were against it. As far as the Government was concerned, the Croke Park II proposals were the most comprehensive and exhaustive. They were very fair across the board and focused on those who earn most and who can bear the cost of paying more. We will await what happens over the weekend.

If Croke Park II had been accepted on the first vote, legislation would have been necessary to deal with elements of it in any event. When the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was asked about legislation in respect of the agreement, the answer he gave was obviously based on the totality of the savings to be achieved over the period between now and 2015. The discussions are ongoing. I commend everybody who has accepted responsibility to play a part in having our country come out of the economic crisis we have found ourselves in. I hope common sense will prevail and that the discussions with the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission, while recognising that some of the unions approved of the agreement by vote while others did not, will result in an opportunity for the country to emerge from the economic challenge and crisis we face.

In looking at the international economy, which is running very strongly, I recognise that our indigenous economy has been flat for quite some time and that this is where confidence needs to be injected. Deputy Stanley should note I never contemplate failure in politics. Nobody with a belief that things can work should do so. I hope they will work. I know this is not an easy position for anybody but I hope we can arrive at a sensible and progressive outcome that will achieve the requirements stipulated by the Government, namely €300 million in savings this year, rising to €1 billion by 2015.

With regard to the question on general practitioner care, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, has a number of sensitive areas to deal with. He examined the question of extending free general practitioner care to persons with long-stay illness. They amount to 60,000 and all the cases are very serious. Their determination as being in the long-stay illness category was based on income and residency. A free GP service for this first sector would require a new legal base, new administrative capacity, and panels of doctors to assess medically whether patients have long-term illness. The Minister of State asked whether he should not examine the entire scheme because the intention is to have every citizen covered ultimately by the general practitioner care service. His point, which I support, is if one puts all one’s effort into focusing on one admittedly important element, requiring the establishment of a legal and administrative base with medical requirements, one will still only have dealt with a very small sector. The Minister of State asked for a number of weeks in which to examine the scheme in its totality with a view to bringing back proposals to make it more cost effective and effective in the patients’ interest. The committee on health gave him the imprimatur to do that work. I expect he will report within a number of weeks.

The mechanics of the property tax are being operated by the Revenue Commissioners, which expect a compliance rate of over 90%. The members are aware of the extensive authority that the Revenue Commissioners have to deduct at source, if necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. The Revenue Commissioners have pointed out the extensive range of opportunities for people to comply with the property tax guidelines. By and large, the rumour or speculation that ordinary citizens would be paying thousands of euro was not true. People who live in apartment blocks have said to me that the assessed local property tax is one fifth or one sixth of what they are actually paying to management companies in some cases. I have heard commercial interests state the rates they pay are only a fraction of what they must pay for entertainment facilities for commercial premises. The local property tax is for local services and the take-up by citizens is very strong. I expect and hope that, before 28 May, the target set by the Revenue Commissioners will be reached. The Revenue Commissioners have set out their powers to follow through in respect of the non-compliant. This will not be the same as the request from local authorities to pay up in respect of the local household charge. Clearly, the Revenue Commissioners will deal with that matter after the local property tax is dealt with. More people are realising that now.

On the question as to whether the referendum commission should be put on a permanent basis, we made a decision on this in January last year. We have not yet followed through on it because of the uncertainty as to the number of referendums that will be held. As members know, the Government decided this year to have a referendum on the future of the Seanad and on the court of civil appeal. Both of these will be held in the autumn when the Government considers the report from the Constitutional Convention on the matters it has decided on. We will determine whether there is a need for the Government to make a decision to have a third referendum or more. Were it to happen, it would not be necessary to have a referendum commission for each. The person appointed to chair one referendum commission could do the work in respect of two or more, if necessary. It does not follow that if there were four referendums, there would have to be four referendum commissions. We have included in the Department’s Estimate €2.1 million for one referendum commission and we notified the Chief Justice. The Minister has written to her and she will make her appointment in due course.

Deputy Harris referred to the taking of responsibility. Long before the Deputy’s time, Departments often fell between two stools such that responsibility for an issue could be moved between one Department and another. For example, a report on disability that was required to be dealt with was being transferred between Departments and agencies. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, said she would take responsibility for the report and she published it. Another example pertains to social enterprise. Responsibility fell between the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Social Protection. Forfás produced a report and said it is more applicable to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which has all the necessary facilities. I examined the matter to determine what body should be responsible. Since Minister of State Sean Sherlock was anxious to undertake the body of work, he has been given authority to do it. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will nominate an appropriate official in his Department to work with the Minister of State to ensure the job is done. I do not like to see circumstances where clear responsibility is not allocated. An example that arose just yesterday concerns Deputy Stanton, who is dealing with the question of autism and associated matters. I have asked him to come before the Cabinet sub-committee to make his case on where priority should lie. We will allocate responsibility for the issues about which he speaks.

The fees for counsel are due to the increased volume of work, so the sum of €12.5 million is because they are doing more work.

As regards the State services with regard to the IFSC, the minutes of all these are published on the Department's website. The Secretary General of my Department chairs the Clearing House Group of the IFSC. I have had occasion to meet with representatives of the companies involved in the IFSC and ask them whether there is an issue of over-extensive regulation or other concerns. I have met them two or three times since my appointment as Taoiseach, but there is a regular meeting with the Secretary General and the minutes of those meetings are published. In regard to the important mobile assets of the financial world, they were concerned that what has grown up here in Dublin should be retained and strengthened. We are the only English-speaking country in the eurozone where our people gave a 60:40 verdict in respect of the fiscal stability treaty, so there is a strong opportunity for continued investment in the financial services sector in Dublin. I have a continual stream of inquiries about that. The Minister for Finance and the IDA talk to these people on a regular basis. The question is a valid one and we are conscious of that matter.

I do not intend to reopen the Moriarty tribunal. That tribunal sat for very many years and finally reported. Third-party costs are being examined. As I said in answer to questions in the Dáil, if somebody out there has more information that is relevant to Moriarty they should bring it to the authorities quickly. When a tribunal is appointed with a sole person in charge, that person has absolute independence in the way they do their business. We are anxious that existing tribunals would come to a close without being pressurised to do so. That is why, for instance, in the case of the Smithwick tribunal the Government sought interim reports to have a fix on where this sole person is moving, without interfering with the work of that tribunal.