DÁIL SPEECH ON TAOISEACH NOMINATIONS

7 Apr 2016

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I was delighted to support the nomination of Deputy Ruth Coppinger. It was historic for Dáil Éireann, as was the previous nomination of Deputy Boyd Barrett. I have always believed in the unity of the broad left and I had hoped, through the decades, that my former party would have been the fulcrum of such a broad left Government or even led such a Government. I was elected as a Right2Change candidate and an Independent 4 Change. My preference still is for change and we should have a change of Government. That was the decisive feeling of the people. In particular, all of those who stood on the platform of Right2Change should perhaps have a single nomination for Taoiseach, with people supporting that broadly across the political spectrum. We should try to fulfil the will of the people in this regard.

A few days after the general election I received an invitation from Deputy Micheál Martin to meet him and discuss the issues of concern and what we both saw as the future for our country. We had a very pleasant meeting for approximately 45 minutes. I outlined to him the ferocious and major concerns from my own constituency, particularly with regard to housing, health and disability services, as well as the requirement for the abolition of water taxes. At the end of the meeting I said that I obviously could not support his nomination for Taoiseach as I believed that in so many areas Fianna Fáil was not prepared to take the dynamic action required and I would not be able to fulfil my Right2Change mandate. A few days later, the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, also kindly invited me to a discussion and we again went through the key areas of concern facing the people. The Taoiseach reiterated the policy stances that he and his party took in the general election. I also said at the end of the meeting that I could not support the nomination of the outgoing Taoiseach because I had been elected as a Right2Change candidate and the people wanted change badly. That was one of the fundamental results of the election.

I was struck in both meetings by the fact that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have so much in common. For example, the previous speaker was the Minister responsible for housing. On this side of the House we urged him desperately to introduce serious rent regulation but he would not do it. He could not achieve it because on that critical policy issue, which affects the provision of social housing so much, he was relentlessly opposed by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. I was shouted down by Fianna Fáil on that subject as well. The parties have so much in common.

There is a duty to govern and six weeks have passed. We urgently need a Government to tackle problems. That heroic young woman, Ms Erica Fleming, is in the building right now, explaining to Deputies her circumstances and those of her family. There are 1,600 other children living in homeless accommodation and hotels this evening. We need urgent action.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell): Thank you, Deputy. You are way over time.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The conservative parties can do that, although I would be happy to oppose them. If, however, they do not come together—–

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell): The time has expired.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: —–there is an obligation on the Right2Change parties and progressive independents and parties to put together a Government in this State. One or other of the conservative parties should see what it can do in supporting such a Government, which would be very dynamic.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Alan Farrell): Please, Deputy, take your seat.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: In the past, some of the Deputies from the left have often been the most effective Ministers.

Tags: Dáil Éireann, Right2Change, Taoiseach

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON STATEMENTS ON HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

23 Mar 2016
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I listened carefully today to the speeches of the Minister and the Taoiseach on housing. I note the Taoiseach talked about this new housing initiative and dramatic moves that we could take. Of course, it has to be asked why we did not end homelessness in the 31st Dáil and why we did not proceed with fairly dramatic attempts to increase the supply of social housing. That is an unanswerable question. It is related to the disastrous economic policies which were followed over the past five years by the Fine Gael-Labour Government.

I proposed a Department of housing 18 or 20 years ago because in some respects we have always had some kind of housing crisis. We have always been short of social housing, particularly in the Dublin area, especially after the Ahern-Haughey Administrations stopped the production of large-scale social housing and left us with the kind of situation which emerged from the crash of 2008 where we simply did not have the supply of housing coming forward, and we have never recovered that. The very least we need is a Department of housing.

Many Deputies referred to the most recent data from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, with 500 families and 1,600 children in this city living in hotel rooms tonight under all kinds of difficult circumstances. It is intolerable. The Minister had the chance on many occasions to simply end homelessness by taking the necessary dramatic steps which he refused to take. It is very much a Dublin-oriented situation. This House has failed the people of Dublin, particularly those who have depended on social housing, and has simply ignored the needs of this region.

I have called repeatedly, as the Minister will be aware, for us to have FEMPI-type legislation in this area. As the Ceann Comhairle will be aware, we were prepared to come in here at all hours in the 30th Dáil to introduce all kinds of legislation to shore up banks, to protect banks, to protect bottom lines, to reward bondholders, etc., all of which I opposed consistently all the way through. The Minister had the opportunity, as the Taoiseach had, to have taken similar steps in housing, but the Minister has refused to do so. The Minister could have taken over all empty NAMA properties and all hoarded building land, and made those properties available while starting an immediate large building programme.

We heard earlier today some criticism of large social housing estates in the Dublin region. It has to be said though that, generally speaking, until we had very bad architecture in the 1980s those estates worked very well. In fact, they are the backbone of my constituency. They are the homes of the people who sent me and the other four Deputies of Dublin Bay North to this House. We need to build like that again. We need, in my constituency alone, two or three parishes of social housing amounting to 10,000 or 15,000 units. We need it yesterday but, unfortunately, the outgoing Minister has not delivered in that regard.

Tags: homelessness, housing, social housing

 

DÁIL QUESTIONS WITH THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE

15 Jan 2016
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the status of Ireland’s yield in growth, taxation and general Government revenue from the European Union quantitative easing programme; the impact on Ireland when the quantitative easing programme concludes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Over the past year I have asked many questions of the Minister in regard to the expanded asset purchase programme. Has the Department of Finance undertaken any real work to track the impact of quantitative easing on specific areas of the economy? Obviously, the growth rate in 2015 was very welcome, as was the additional revenue in taxes. Did quantitative easing not play a significant role in that, or has any attempt been made by the Minister to quantify it?

Deputy Michael Noonan: Under the European Central Bank, ECB, expanded asset purchase programme, often referred to as quantitative easing, QE, the eurosystem, comprising the ECB and the national central banks of the euro area, has been purchasing €60 billion of public and private assets per month and plans to do so until at least March 2017, or until inflation returns to levels consistent with price stability, defined as inflation close to 2%. Purchases of sovereign debt began on 9 March 2015.

While it is difficult to estimate directly the beneficial impact of QE on growth rates here since this policy began, it is nevertheless clear that QE has boosted nominal growth, and this is one factor behind the h2 tax and general Government revenue growth in 2015.

Assessing what the final impact to the Irish economy will be by the time the QE programme concludes is also difficult to estimate at this stage, not least because of the contingent nature of the end date. The ECB has stated that QE will conclude only when euro area inflation returns to levels consistent with price stability. This outcome will help businesses across Europe to enjoy better access to credit, boost investment, create jobs and thus support overall economic growth, which should offset the impact of withdrawing QE. Thus, by helping to create jobs and supporting overall economic growth in all euro area countries, including Ireland, the withdrawal of QE will signal the resumption of more normal growth activity in the euro area.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister said it was very difficult to estimate. Last April or May, the Minister gave me a similar reply, and said he might be able to produce some kind of figures. He is indicating that the withdrawal of QE would have a very significant impact. The figures he and the CSO recently gave us on growth rates until 2021 show a significant decline in growth down to 2017 and 2018 for whoever forms the next Government. Is it likely that the withdrawal of QE will have this significant impact, or is it possible that QE will go on in some shape or form?

The Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, Professor Philip Lane, and the governing council of the ECB are the people who take the key decisions on it. To what extent does the Irish Government impact on decisions?

Deputy Michael Noonan: We can attempt to measure the effect of QE. In the October 2014 budget, the growth estimate for 2015 was 4%. We put some money back into the economy, which increased demand in the domestic economy and drove the 4% higher. In 2015, two tail winds occurred which had not been accounted for in the budget. One of these was QE. Although I had campaigned for it for three years, I did not expect it to be introduced as early as March 2015. I thought it would be introduced in autumn 2015. Therefore, we had not factored it into the budget. The second tail wind was the unexpected decline in energy prices at the start of 2015.

If we take it that it would have been reasonable to expect growth of approximately 5% for 2015 as a result of the budget, QE has had some impact on the fact that growth was 7% in 2015. QE kept interest rates down and, more importantly, reduced the exchange rate of the euro. As a result, our export sector exported more and earned more money. However, it is very difficult to quantify.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Looking back, it is a pity in some respects that Mario Draghi and his colleagues did not embark on a QE programme earlier. The major down side to QE in the British and Japanese experience has been an increase in inequality. Owners of assets tend to do very well, going back to the point Deputy Healy made about the Credit Suisse report. Is this a concern for the Minister?

Deputy Michael Noonan: It is a matter of monetary policy, and while I have much control over fiscal policy through the budget, monetary policy is for the ECB and the national central banks. Monetary policy is for the new banking union, driven by the people in Frankfurt. I advocated QE when it was very unpopular to do so in Europe. I campaigned for it for approximately three years and, eventually, a majority moved on side making it possible for Mr. Draghi and the people in Frankfurt to move, without objections in the German constitutional courts, to implement QE.

QE seems to be working. Europe is slowly rising and across all countries, including Greece, there is positive growth, which many people attribute to QE. The commitment is that it will continue until 2017, when it will be reviewed to see if it will be continued. I cannot see it as a permanent feature of monetary policy. It will end at some stage. The most serious internal risk to our prosperity is the size of our debt, and we must keep pushing it down. The risk arises not from the debt itself but the interest on the debt. If QE is removed and interest rates increase, it will have an adverse impact. We need to be better positioned on the overall burden of debt by 2017, which we will be.

Tags: ECB, Finance, Quantitative Easing

 

DÁIL QUESTIONS WITH MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT ON MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF DISQUALIFIED DRIVERS

16 Dec 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to his correspondence with the Promoting Awareness, Responsibility and Care on our roads group in October 2015, in which he said that a new agreement to provide for the mutual recognition of driver disqualification was signed on 30 October 2015 by Ireland and the United Kingdom, that legislation to underpin this agreement was at an advanced stage of drafting with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and that a Bill was expected to be published in November 2015 and enacted by the end of 2015, if the drafting of this legislation has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.  [44883/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: After the UK pulled out of the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications this time last year, the Minister undertook to use the planned road traffic legislation, which he brought to the Cabinet on Tuesday, to bring about a regularisation of this country’s arrangements with the UK. It has taken the Government a full year to legislate for this issue, which is of great importance to the Border region, in particular. I understand most of that time was spent renegotiating our mutual recognition agreement with the UK. A number of further months have passed since that was concluded. I accept that the other key part of this legislation, which relates to drug-driving, is very important. The Government has stuck mutual recognition in with that. Organisations like the PARC road safety group are asking why the mutual recognition aspect of the proposed Bill has not been advanced more quickly on its own. They believe that should have been done because this is such an important issue. Has the Road Safety Authority been informed of Northern disqualifications? If so, how many such disqualifications has it been informed of in the current year? Have we informed the Northern Ireland authorities in reverse?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: As the Deputy knows, saving lives by improving road behaviour is at the heart of the road safety measures that have been taken here and in the UK. In the past, it was possible for a driver who committed a serious road traffic offence in one jurisdiction and was detected and prosecuted, resulting in a driving disqualification, to return home and continue to drive without any recourse being available to apply that disqualification in his or her home country. Arrangements for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the UK, based on the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications and primary legislation in both jurisdictions, were in place from January 2010 to November 2014, with an average of 140 disqualifications being transferred between the two jurisdictions each year.  Those arrangements changed for the reasons outlined by the Deputy. When they were in place, a driving disqualification received in the other jurisdiction was recognised in the driver’s home country or country of normal residence.  A new agreement between Ireland and the UK on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications was signed on 30 October 2015. I am taking the first opportunity available to me – the road traffic Bill that was agreed by the Cabinet yesterday – to make provision for that in legislation. The drafting of the Bill has been completed and the Government approved it yesterday.  My aim is to publish the Bill soon. I hope to have it published before the end of the year. While it will not be passed by the Oireachtas early in the new year, I assure Deputy Broughan that I aim to have it introduced in the Oireachtas in January so that its passage through these Houses may begin. I believe a number of measures in the Bill will make a prompt contribution to better road safety for 2016.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: While I welcome the commitment to introduce this Bill, it is a pity the part of it that is the subject of my question could not have been passed more quickly. I accept that the other issue is very important as well. Ten years ago, I proposed in this House that we should adopt the drug-driving regime that was being used in the state of Victoria in Australia. It has taken a decade for legislation to be introduced to address this issue. Surely the Minister could have fast-tracked the mutual recognition aspect of this legislation to get it passed before this House is dissolved in the new year. A number of us will not be in this House after the general election. The Minister and I might not be Members of the 32nd Dáil. The legislation to which I refer is of great importance in Border areas. How will this process actually work? When the Road Safety Authority gets the information from Northern Ireland, will it go to the District Court to seek to have someone who has been the subject of a disqualification in Northern Ireland disqualified here? I think that was the older mechanism that was used. Will it be used again under this process? I have raised some of these matters on Topical Issues on two occasions. The Minister was not able to attend those debates because he was on European business. The Minister of State, Deputy English, deputised for him. I asked two critical questions about disqualifications, but I did not receive any satisfactory answers. I would like to put those questions again briefly. First, we often hear from solicitors etc., that there is no actual requirement in law for the Courts Service to record the licence of a disqualified driver. Is that the case? If so, do we need legislation? Second, the Minister has told me we do not need legislation on the question of breathalyser results in English and Irish. Prosecutions are not proceeding as a result of the chaotic situation that exists in this regard. Can the Minister tell us what will be done about that, particularly in light of Judge Marie Keane’s recent judgment? She threw out 21 cases over summonses that were wrongly worded, in her view.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Before I answer the Deputy’s questions, I would like to anticipate the possibility that I will not get an opportunity to speak about all of these road safety matters after Christmas.

I acknowledge that the Deputy and the other Deputies present today have made a significant contribution to addressing the issue of road safety in this Dáil. It is a matter that is treated differently from other matters we debate. As of earlier this week, 34 fewer people were killed on our roads compared to this time last year. That is a very significant change to which all the Deputies have contributed.

The Deputy asked me a number of significant questions. He asked why could I not do this sooner. The reason is that the agreement between both jurisdictions was signed on 30 October and the first opportunity I have had to bring it in is in the road traffic Bill, which I have just brought to Cabinet. On the issue of where we are in terms of the serving of statements regarding the electronic breathalyser test devices in Irish, when I dealt with the matter in the past, it was subject to a court hearing. I was advised that we would win that matter but, as the Deputy knows, we did not. We were ruled against. The next day I signed the statutory instrument to deal with that matter. A number of cases are before the courts and I will not comment on them because it is up to the judges to evaluate and make decisions on them. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor is considering what action could be taken on them and I await its response. I will not comment on any cases the courts are currently evaluating. I always do my best to take Topical Issue matters when I am here. I was not here, as the Deputy acknowledged, for the debate on that issue. I will find out what questions the Deputy raised and I will write to him within the next seven days with an answer on them.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I would welcome that particularly on the two issues the Minister mentioned and whether legislation is required regarding the recording of licences by the Courts Service, given that there has been so much controversy about that. The Ceann Comhairle ruled out two questions I tried to ask about Judge Marie Keane’s judgment on 12 November 2015, when she dismissed 21 cases on the basis of failure to present licences because, as she said, the summonses were worded incorrectly. They did not include a reference to the penalties people would incur if they did not bring their licences or have them ready for presentation. I asked whether that has been appealed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seems there are many matters in regard to the broader issue under mutual recognition that need to be addressed and in respect of which we need to bring forward legislation.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: We have to acknowledge that the vast majority of road traffic cases are successfully prosecuted. To take the application of penalty points alone, more than 84% of penalty point cases before the courts—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister is inadvertently misleading the Dáil—–

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister has the floor.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I have asked a series of questions about this matter, about adjournments and about cases that are not completed, cases that are withdrawn and cases that are thrown out. He cannot cite that figure of 84%.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is the Minister’s time to respond.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Did the Minister read Judge Hamill’s speech to the Law Reform Commission in which he made some very pertinent points about what is a fairly chaotic situation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy, the Minister has the floor.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister said this in the past when, unfortunately, I could not be present but that is not the case. We need more information from the Courts Service before we can start talking about percentages.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I can understand why the Deputy wants to make that point given that he made a number of statements on the matter. The Courts Service then had to clarify the interpretation of statistics.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: That is a disingenuous answer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy, please.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The Deputy has made his points. He put forward an analysis with respect to some of those statistics, which he is perfectly entitled to do. A week later the Courts Service gave a very different interpretation with respect to the figures he offered.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: It left out a lot of information.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The advice the Deputy has just offered me is advice that goes both ways in regard to the analysis of statistics that come out of our court system. I stand by the point I made that any road traffic offence that goes before the courts is one the Judiciary independently has to evaluate and make its mind up on. The vast majority of such cases that go before the courts are successfully prosecuted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Thank you, Minister. I must move on to the next question.

Tags: disqualified drivers, mutual recognition, road safety

DÁIL DEBATE ON ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY STATS MONITORING AND REPORTING

11 Dec 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to take this debate. I understand the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Donohoe, is in Brussels. The Minister of State last took a similar debate on 22 October. He told me in respect of questions I put to the Minister that he had no doubt the Minister would address the issues I raised, because it was not in his nature not to do so. Unfortunately, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has not given me any replies to the key questions I put to the Minister of State that day. For example, I requested that the Minister would clarify whether it was the case that there is no requirement in legislation for the Courts Service to record the licence of a disqualified driver. I also asked for clarification regarding the breathalyser printouts and whether they had to be in English and Irish.

Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach to ensure the new road safety Bill dealing with drug-driving and mutual recognition with Northern Ireland would be passed before the Dáil ends. Along with my colleagues in the outstanding and sterling civil society group, the PARC road safety group, led by Ms Susan Gray, we continue to trudge through half-answers, fob-offs and long-awaited replies from the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. The tardiness of both Ministers is the nub of the debate, namely, the urgent need for the Minister to direct the Road Safety Authority to compile, monitor and update statistics relating to the implementation and follow-up of penalty point offences and disqualifications, in particular those relating to drink-driving and dangerous driving.

Earlier in the summer, through figures supplied to me by the Minister for Justice and Equality, we discovered that of the 20,830 drink-driving cases listed before the District Court between January 2013 and May 2015, just 8,391, or 40%, received a conviction. That involves completed cases. The Courts Service quickly challenged the figure and said the overall conviction rates were over 80%, but how can we verify this information? The Ceann Comhairle disallowed a number of parliamentary questions in which I asked for the number of cases, the reasons they were struck out per the District Court for the 20,830 driving cases between January 2013 and May 2015, the number of cases and reasons for adjournment in the same parameters per the District Court, the number of cases withdrawn in the same parameters per the District Court, and the number of cases and reasons for non-completion in the same parameters per the District Court. We do not have all that information in the House. I am still awaiting a reply to my parliamentary question on the overall breakdown of the above issues, which was finally accepted.

Without this information, the public and Oireachtas cannot form a view on the efficacy or implementation of traffic laws. More worrying is the fact that of the 8,391 persons convicted between 2013 and early 2015, a mere 1,647, or 20%, had their licence details recorded in court. Under section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 2002, persons summonsed to court for road traffic offences are legally obliged to produce a driving licence in all cases, as the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, said in a recent reply. However, he said implementing the legislation was a matter for the courts and that bringing prosecutions for the non-production of licences is a matter for An Garda Síochána.

In a recent ruling, Judge Marie Keane found a court could not convict persons summonsed for the non-production of their licences as the consequences and penalties for the non-production had not been stated in the summons. However, I have been informed that An Garda Síochána is responsible for the wording of summons. Approximately 125 such cases were thrown out last month, apparently due to this technicality on summonses which was in fact created in the first instance by the Garda. I understand the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, has appealed Judge Keane’s ruling.

Time and again, we have clear evidence of a dysfunctional system, in particular the system of reporting. While our road safety legislation is fairly robust and a lot of work has been done in the House and the Department, the application and implementation of the law is where improvement is badly needed. Surely it is now time for the Road Safety Authority to liaise very closely with the Courts Service and An Garda Síochána and for the computer systems of the three organisations to monitor, evaluate and report precisely to us on how all road traffic offences are disposed of through the courts, and we can then work on what gaps remain to be dealt with.

Deputy Damien English: I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this issue. When I saw his name, I hoped his questions had been answered. I will track the information for him. There was a commitment to get the information for him and I will track that as best I can. As the Deputy knows, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, is in Brussels at the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council today. He sends his apologies. That is why I am taking this Topical Issue matter.

The fixed charge notice and penalty points system has, in general, operated very well since its introduction in 2002 and has enjoyed wide public support. This is evidenced by the fact that over 80% of those who receive a fixed charge notice pay the specified amount within the prescribed period. The system plays a very important role in enhancing road safety. The system of penalty points was first introduced in the Road Traffic Act 2002. The main goal of the system is not to penalise people but to make them more aware of unsafe driving behaviour, to influence and improve driver behaviour and to reduce the level of deaths and serious injuries on roads.

The key to reducing injuries and fatalities on a road is to continue to change driver behaviour. To date this year, 147 fatalities have been recorded. While there have been 33 fewer fatalities since this date last year, a lot of work remains to be done to reduce further the number of fatalities on roads, and we can all play a part in achieving this aim.

The role of the Road Safety Authority in the production of road safety information statistics is enshrined in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006. The research department of the Road Safety Authority is responsible for the production of road safety information and statistics. The role of the research department is to collect collision statistics and publish reports to understand how, when, where and why collisions happen to prevent them from recurring. It also promotes and participates in multidisciplinary research projects at national and EU level to inform road safety policy and road safety communications and ultimately reduce collisions.

Statistics on penalty points by offence, including those relating to drink-driving and dangerous driving, are readily available on the Road Safety Authority website. It publishes a monthly breakdown of drivers by number of penalty points, by number of penalty points and county, and the number of drivers issued with fixed charge notices for penalty points offences broken down by offence and by county.

The Deputy will appreciate that statistics should always be interpreted with caution. It should be noted, for example, that points data, broken down by county, do not correspond to where the original road traffic offence took place. The points data just state where the driver is domiciled. Therefore, it is not possible to link definitively the points awarded to a specific county as having been incurred while committing an offence in that county. A driver may have been detected committing an offence in Dublin, for example, but because the address on his or her licence is in Kildare, the licensing authority that originally issued the licence, the points will be attributed to County Kildare.

The Department of Transport provides to the Road Safety Authority analysis reports on penalty points and offences. All statistics on drink-driving and dangerous driving, including the surrender of driving licences, are provided on a request-only basis to the Road Safety Authority, but the Department is working with it with a view to extending the monthly reports to include statistics on all court endorsements, including convictions and disqualifications for drink-driving and dangerous driving.

I am pleased to inform the Deputy that it is envisaged that this will be automated and operational in the new year and I will ask that the Road Safety Authority publish this information on a monthly basis on its website. Targeting road user behaviour through education, engineering and enforcement, known as the three Es, has been the cornerstone of our improved road safety record to date.

I am satisfied that our current road safety strategy and continued enforcement of existing road safety legislation by An Garda Síochána, together with forthcoming legislation which will focus on strengthening the law on drug-driving, among other issues, will allow Ireland to maintain progress in reducing fatalities and serious injuries on roads. As road users, we should never underestimate the power we have to help to save lives and reduce injuries on the roads. Changing driver behaviour for the better, whether it is to reduce speed, turn off our mobile phones or leave our car keys at home when we are heading out for the night over the festive period, can have a life-saving impact on our safety and the safety of others. We can all play our part in making this festive period one of the safest on record.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The key point, as the Minister of State said, is that we still have a very tragic figure in terms of the number of fatalities on road this year, which is 147. The figure may be lower than recent years, but an enormous amount of damage has been done, besides the fatalities themselves, to the families and connections of each and every person killed on our roads. We do not have a statistical basis to be able to measure the implementation of our laws. For example, one shocking statistic, on which I am still awaiting further clarification, is that 521 drivers were already disqualified between January 2013 and March 2015 at the time of conviction for involvement in a collision causing serious injury or death.

The Minister of State referred to the Road Safety Authority and its relationship with the Department, including the surrender of driving licences. The Minister of State said they are currently provided on a request-only basis to the Road Safety Authority, but the Department is working with the Road Safety Authority with a view to extending this monthly report to include statistics. The statistics on which the Department is working to move towards with the Road Safety Authority are the very statistics we want.

I have submitted a plethora of questions to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, on the number of learner drivers paying fixed charge notices, information on the DPP’s appeal against Judge Marie Keane’s ruling, which I mentioned, the number of speeding offences and convictions, the number of drivers disqualified for drink-driving or dangerous driving, fixed notices for drivers parked in cycle lanes, disqualifications per District Court breakdown and so on. That is all information that is not to hand and does not appear in the statistics to which the Minister of State referred. The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, told me that since January 2013 a disqualified driver has been required to post his or her driving licence to the Road Safety Authority and the National Driver Licence Service in Cork city. I am informed that 96% of those disqualified simply do not do so.

Approximately a year ago, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, told Ms Susan Gray of PARC on “Prime Time” that if he felt the postal system was not working he would take action and introduce legislation. Here we are, more than a year later, and nothing has happened. The nub of the debate tonight is that I believe the Road Safety Authority should be up to date on every conceivable aspect of the statistics relating to road traffic offences, so we would not have to do a trawling, relentless search through the Courts Service’s records. This is what we want, and it should be an ambition for, if not the outgoing Government, then certainly the new Government.

The recently announced proposals to introduce graduated fines for road traffic offences, perhaps ultimately based on a person’s income, seems ludicrous. If the current system is not implemented in a clearly transparent way that is satisfactory to the House with up to date statistics, why would we introduce a much more complex system and introduce a double standard for people of different levels of wealth? It just does not make any sense. What we need is to have the current legislation which we passed in the House implemented fairly and squarely for every citizen and that we know the facts and the statistics.

Deputy Damien English: The Deputy has many facts and statistics himself, which are very useful, and I do not have the same information as he does. I know he is concentrating on the subject and rightly so. The Department shares some of the Deputy’s aims and it is trying to improve the information flow between it and the RSA. It is probably a matter of applying more urgency to this. The Deputy is correct that the more information we gather the more it can inform our thinking, policies and lawmaking. The main point is that we continue to try to drive down the number of fatalities. The Deputy is absolutely right that one is far too many, and to have 147, regardless of whether the number is increasing or decreasing, is still far too many. It onus is on all of us to try to do this.   The Deputy is correct that statistics and facts help focus our minds on it and help get the message out to people. If, when I am on the road, I park for ten minutes and watch, I often wonder how we do not have more fatalities because so many improvements can be made when it comes to driving. The onus is on all of us. None of us is innocent when it comes to driving 100% perfectly. It is about engineering and education, but it is also about attitude. This is something the Department of Education and Skills is working on, and I hope that junior cycle reform will provide opportunities to introduce new initiatives and programmes to educate young people in second level on the importance of having the right attitude when it comes to driving a vehicle, and on being aware of what is around them and thinking like an engineer. It is about understanding what it is like to drive a bus if one is a cyclist and vice versa. This is the understanding we must achieve. We all have a role in this. I will take what the Deputy has said to the Department of Education and Skills and I will feed back to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport the issues he has raised.

Tags: dangerous driving, Drink-driving, penalty points, road safety, Road Safety Authority, RSA

 

DÁIL QUESTIONS WITH MINISTER FOR EDUCATION ON THIRD LEVEL FUNDING AND JUNIOR CERT REFORM

9 Dec 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: One of the characteristics of the outgoing Government is that in real terms and per capita it has seriously cut funding for third level education. That is one of its legacies. The Government has also increased third level fees significantly. Does the Minister expect the expert group on future funding to report shortly? Will its report include recommendations on student loans and is that something the Minister supports, given the dire constraints that seem to be operating in our third level sector financially?

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I thank Deputy Broughan. The Government recognises the importance of the higher education sector to Ireland’s future economic and social development. It also acknowledges that the sector must be resourced sufficiently and in a sustainable manner to ensure it can deliver on our national ambitions. The reality of the economic situation and the public expenditure corrections that had to be made in recent years presented challenges across all areas of public expenditure, including higher education. The sector has responded well to these challenges and has continued to provide opportunities for increasing numbers of students to undertake a higher education qualification. However, in recognition of funding pressures, an expert group chaired by Peter Cassells has been established to examine funding arrangements for higher education and to identify a range of approaches which, combined, will achieve a sustainable funding base. I understand the group is in the final stages of its deliberations and I expect to receive its report shortly.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: If the report recommends income-contingent student loans on the Australian model or another model, is that something the Minister would support in the context of the next few weeks, the general election and so on? The Minister’s budget for the sector for 2016 is €1.45 billion for current expenditure, with a miserable €20 million on the capital side. Is it not the case that funding has been deliberately constrained and that this sector has done the most badly among all economic and social sectors in terms of funding from the Government? We have seen the rankings of Irish universities tumbling down the QS and Times Educational Supplement lists. Our highest-ranking university is Trinity College, Dublin, at No. 78. UCD, my own alma mater, is heading down to the 150 mark. Before the Minister and her predecessor, Deputy Quinn, took office, these colleges were in the 20s and 30s and very highly rated. Has that not been part of her legacy?   The Government has done absolutely nothing in the area I represent. Dublin 10 and Dublin 17 have the lowest take-up of third level education of all electoral areas in the State, at less than 20%, as well as having the lowest provision for third level education. The Government has done absolutely nothing to change that or to encourage additional people to go to third level. Is it not the case that, unfortunately, the Government’s administration of third level been a disaster and another aspect of the fallout of the austerity years? We need a fundamental change. By the way, my own approach is to base funding on progressive taxation and progressive income tax.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The indications are that a range of options will be proposed by the Cassells group. We will consider all of them. I will not pre-empt that before I even see the report. Certainly, all options will be considered.

Regarding the Deputy’s general points, I agree that we must broaden access, but a high percentage of our young people go on to higher education compared with other countries. However, that is not evenly distributed, particularly in Dublin city.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: Some 6.7% in Dublin North-Central.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: We want to improve that level. Next week, I will publish a plan for access to higher education. It went through the Cabinet yesterday. It will include specific plans and targets for broadening the opportunity for access to higher education. Of course, higher education is not the only option. We will also introduce 25 new apprenticeships, which the Minister of State, Deputy English, and I announced earlier this year. We want people to consider options besides higher education.

Third level has faced difficult financial times. It has done well in some respects, for example, Horizon 2020, but the situation has been challenging and we are conscious that this issue must be addressed. The report will come to me in the near future.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: With her party, is the Minister planning to provide additional resources through a progressive taxation system or will she go down the two roads of income-contingent student loans, which would be a further burden on young people who are facing high rents, mortgages, finding jobs in a tough economy and so on, and increased fees? Alternatively, will she begin to resource properly a sector that has been one of the victims of the austerity years to restore it to the level that it seemed to be reaching before the Government entered office and the previous Government embarked on its crazy austerity programme? The fall from grace in the international rankings of our top universities is deplorable. Our international reputation has been damaged during the period of this Administration.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I assure the Deputy that we did not cut any budget because that was what we wanted. We faced extraordinarily difficult political decisions.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Government had choices.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Just the Minister, please.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: We did not have choices—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Government did.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan:  —–in terms of the overall amount of money available to us. What one takes in in taxation and what one must borrow are issues that one must deal with when in government. We dealt with them and have begun the recovery. My h2 view, which has been supported by my colleagues in government in so far as we have attained an increase in the education budget in the past two years, is that public services, in particular education, need to be funded. We must ensure that good public expenditure on issues like education is a priority. It will be prioritised, but I will not pre-empt the report’s proposal. We will consider the options that it suggests. I expect to have the report shortly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As the Deputies who have tabled Questions Nos. 11 and 12 are not present, we will move on to the next question.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I will await the written answer and let Deputy Broughan ask his question. It is an important issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: that is fine.

  Questions Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, replied to with Written Answers.

State Examinations Reviews
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she will update Dáil Éireann on the roll-out of the junior certificate reforms in 2016; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43781/15]Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: According to the last report, only one quarter of schools would be in a position to engage in the roll-out of the junior certificate reforms – English, science and business subjects – from next spring. Where does the situation stand, given that the Minister does not have the confidence of a major trade union, ASTI? What is she doing about this?

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: In September 2014, implementation of the junior cycle commenced with a new specification in English and the availability of a number of short courses. Talks with the two main teacher unions continued during 2014 and 2015 and the 2015 junior cycle framework was published in August 2015. Agreement was reached with the leadership of the two unions in May 2015 on revised reform proposals and supporting implementation resources in July 2015. Following a ballot of members in September, these proposals were accepted by members of TUI and rejected by members of ASTI.

A comprehensive professional development programme to support junior cycle is being rolled out. This includes seminars for school leaders, whole-school continuing professional development, CPD, subject-specific seminars, teacher-led CPD and school visits. In September 2016, new specifications for business and science will be introduced for implementation in schools. Only English is going ahead this year. TUI members are participating in the CPD programme following the outcome of their union ballot. The ASTI has recently engaged in a consultative process with its members on the junior cycle proposals following the outcome of their ballot.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: This is a major policy of the Government, but the Government is ending and nothing has been achieved. There is still a great sense of uncertainty. Second level is a critical time in a child’s development. How will it be handled, given the importance of the learning programme in teenage years? Will the Minister take any initiative in the coming months either to advance the programme or address the grave concerns that have been put to her by the ASTI and its members in recent years?

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Implementation has commenced in respect of English. All of the other education partners have supported the changes. We held detailed negotiations with the unions. A relatively small percentage of ASTI members voted. They have rejected the proposals despite the fact that their leaders signed up to them. We are continuing to engage with the leaders, who are engaging with their members to determine whether any issue needs to be clarified. We are available to provide that clarification.

I am determined and reject the suggestion that we have not succeeded in making progress. We have done. Implementation has commenced in the schools and will continue. It will change the way that teaching and learning happen in the classroom. It will be of great benefit, in particular to students who are in danger of being alienated from school because of the old system in which the written exam was the be all and end all. There will still be a written exam, but there will also be a practical assessment in the classroom.

I intend to provide whatever clarification the ASTI needs and hope it will be able to participate in the programme in the near future.

Tags: College, education, Junior Cert Reforms, Student Loans

 

TOMMY’S OBJECTION TO BUILDING ON ST.ANNE’S PARK

3 Dec 2015
Plan No. 3899/15 for Crekav Landbank Developments Ltd. at Playing Fields to the Rear of St. Paul’s College, Sybil Hill Road, Raheny, Dublin 5.

THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF RAHENY AND THEIR PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

I first became aware of a proposal to build on amenity lands at St. Anne’s from a few constituents just days before Plan 3899 was submitted to Dublin City Council.

The so-called Community Infrastructure Statement prepared by Crekav refers to a Community Information Evening on September 18th last to which I was not invited and of which I had no knowledge. A list of individuals and groups ‘consulted’ on pages 31 and 32 of this Crekav document includes not a single residents or civic society group from Raheny nor the deputies representing Raheny parish in the old Dublin North East Constituency, including myself. Of course the St. Anne’s/Ennafort district was also generally part of Dublin North East over recent decades and I am a former Dublin City Councillor for the Raheny Ward. In any event, for about the past three years, senior public representatives have been operating throughout the new Dublin Bay North constituency and it is incredible that the proposers did not bring this proposal to the attention of all Raheny representatives. There was of course an onus on Dublin City Council officials (under the Local Government Acts) to give an early report on any City council involvement in the proposal.

St. Anne’s Park is bounded by Raheny estates to the north and east and by Clontarf estates to the south. It is notable however that even some distinguished Clontarf residents and other organisations were not consulted. But given the impact of this proposal on Raheny parish and district and it’s proud and historic connection with St. Anne’s Park and environs, it is astonishing that the district and it’s terrific civic society and residents associations were not consulted. Likewise public representatives like myself who made many representations on behalf of Raheny residents regarding the maintenance and care of St. Anne’s Park over many years should have been consulted. Because of this total lack of consultation with Raheny and district, Plan 3899 should be rejected out of hand.

THE HUGE LOSS OF AMENITY OPEN SPACE WHICH IS HISTORICALLY PART OF ST. ANNE’S PARK

St. Anne’s Park is the premier park of Dublin City Council (Phoenix Park and St. Stephen’s Green of course are national parks run by the OPW). The park is beloved of Dubliners across the Northside and is visited and used by tens of thousands of residents from all the parishes of Dublin Bay North and much further afield. The historic Rose Garden and in more recent years The Red Stables have been the focus of enjoyment for visitors and local residents alike. For those of us who ran and trained for sports or simply walked the dog, St. Anne’s has a cherished role in our lives. This love for St. Anne’s was graphically evident 12 to 15 years ago in the successful struggle tremendously led by St. Anne’s Residents Association during those years to remove a major wood waste management facility from the St. Anne’s estate side of the Park. As runners and sportspeople well know, St. Anne’s is a relatively small park and it’s possible to briskly walk it’s boundary in about an hour.

Of course, up to just over a decade or so ago, much of the 8.73 hectares assigned for this proposed development was fully part of St. Anne’s Park. The area was used extensively by the general public as well as by local sports clubs and the children of St. Paul’s. To visitors to St. Anne’s, this area seemed simply part of the North West corner of the park. A number of meetings were held at that time attended by residents, local sports clubs and public representatives. Plans were outlined for full size Gaelic, Soccer and Rugby pitches on the amenity lands in question and I recall commitments being given by the Vincentian Order that the area would remain amenity open space for use by the children of St. Paul’s and the children and young people of Clontarf and Raheny. Some time after the new pitches were developed, a railing was placed around these lands and I raised the issue with the then City Parks Superintendent, Mr. Gerry Barry. Mr. Barry reported back on the sale of this part of St. Anne’s 50 years before that but agreed that the area had been used throughout that time by the general public as part of St. Anne’s.

Effectively an amenity area comprising 6 large sports pitches will now be lost to St. Paul’s School and to the wider area of St Anne’s Park and district. The combined impact of the railing off of this parkland area earlier this century and the above proposal is the loss of about 12 to 15 per cent of St. Anne’s Park. Because of it’s historic function as part of St. Anne’s and it’s current role as playing fields for St. Paul’s students and local clubs, Plan 3899 represents a serious diminution of residential amenity for the people of Raheny and Clontarf and for this reason also, the plan must be refused.

THE Z15 ZONING OF ST. PAULS COLLEGE PRECLUDES THE ALIENATION OF THESE AMENITY LANDS

The Reddy Architecture Plus Urbanism report on the Crekav proposal ignores the key injunction for Z 15 Zonings in the 2011/2017 City Development Plan, i.e. ‘To protect and provide for institutional and community uses and to ensure that existing amenities are protected’. The permissible uses for Z15 lands do not include major high density residential development as is proposed by Plan 3899.

The proposal totally depends therefore on the ‘Open for Consideration’ possible uses. But clearly none of the uses listed under this heading are intended to remove the key function of these lands for a large boys school of around 600 pupils (and a school with a distinguished history in school sport) or for the local clubs and groups who were long facilitated by the St. Paul’s school community.

It is pointless for Reddy Architecture to write about Masterplans for Z15 developments which incorporate and retain the essential open character of the Z15 zoned lands when their proposals for these lands would do the opposite. The provision of a single small Gaelic pitch and a 5-a-side pitch in the development does nothing to preserve the historic ‘open character’ of these lands.

A few years ago, during the depths of the construction crash, the economist Colm McCarthy proposed that all of St. Anne’s Park should be built on. A torrent of outrage greeted this ignorant proposal since the economist should have known that there were hundreds of hectares of land zoned for residential development just over a mile further North along with thousands of proposed houses with full and extant planning permissions. But that episode showed the enduring affection of Dubliners for St. Anne’s and their revulsion at any attempt to reduce or destroy this iconic city park. Similar anger has arisen over this proposal which seeks to irreversibly change the amenity character of St Paul’s and St. Anne’s and which has no justification under any Z15 or other zoning system. The proposal is seen widely as another effort by a religious order to cash in on amenity lands which were originally entrusted to them for educational purposes by the Irish people.

THE HEIGHT, DESIGN AND DENSITY OF PLAN 3899 IS TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH RAHENY AND ST. ANNE’S PARK

The height, design and density of this proposal is greatly at variance with the receiving environment in Raheny and Clontarf. Blocks A to F containing the 274 apartments will tower over the All Saints Road and Maryville Road districts of St. Anne’s estate and will be highly visible from the Howth Road and Ennafort estates.

The blocks will also totally dominate the northern and central areas of St. Anne’s Park and will be a striking edifice along the main avenue and across the whole of St. Anne’s Park. Indeed the whole rural ambience of the main avenue of St. Anne’s Park will be altered forever and the quiet oasis which St. Anne’s Park represents will be massively diminished by this proposal.

The “Appropriate Assessment Screening” referred to in the Scott Cawley report simply reiterates some of the generally known information on wildlife using the existing St. Paul’s playing fields and St. Anne’s Park. Clearly the loss of the amenity lands concerned will be another restriction on the wildlife of St. Anne’s and the nearby Bull Island biosphere. But the Scott Cawley report makes no reference to the profound visual impact of the 6 large 5-storey apartment blocks on a huge area of the adjoining St. Anne’s Park.

In the Reddy Architecture presentation, the 6 apartment blocks present a massive high rise appearance which is totally out of character with neighbouring homes in St. Anne’s and Ennafort estates and in nearby Clontarf and Killester. The height and design of these blocks are reminiscent of the North Fringe from Clongriffin to Santry where urban masterplans also designated a uniform too high density. The overalls site density is purported to be 43 units to the hectare but in the footprint of the apartments of course, its about 160 units to the hectare or over 60 units to the acre, a density which is in fact higher than most areas of the North Fringe. There are no remotely similar massive, high and high density buildings in Raheny Parish. Even the nearby Sybill Hill nursing home is of a lower and much less dense construction. In addition, nearly 80% of the proposed 107 mostly 3-storey houses are actually 4-beds so it has to be asked what role if any those houses would play in the provision of badly needed social housing and starter homes for the young people of Raheny, Clontarf and district. On massive design, height and high-density, Plan 3899/15 must be rejected.

The Traffic Impact Assessment and Mobility Management Plan is Grossly Deficient.

The ILPT Consulting Traffic Impact and Management Plan is grossly deficient. The key Howth Road/Sybill Hill Road/Vernon Avenue/Brookwood Avenue junction is under intense traffic pressure, especially at rush hours. The massive flows of traffic at this junction are exacerbated by the long lines of parked cars and other vehicles outside St. Paul’s School and Sybill Hill. Dublin City Council in its wisdom also removed a small car park for elderly visitors to St. Anne’s Park at the main St. Anne’s Park entrance on Sybill Hill Road and a long line of cars often runs southwards from the Park entrance along Vernon Avenue. None of this intense traffic and parking congestion is remotely addressed in the ILTP study. Photographs show clear roadways at non-peak times and the huge impact of the entrance to the proposed new estate into this very busy area is largely ignored. The 107 houses and 274 apartments will be home to up to 500 or more vehicles and household and visitor traffic will generate perhaps 2000 to 2500 car trips a day. This traffic will have to struggle in and out through an already very high traffic environment (as outlined above). The AM and PM peak Picady analysis traffic figures are frankly unbelievable (especially the 17.4% capacity at the peak). The net result will be huge and ongoing traffic congestion for my existing constituents on Howth Road, Brookwood Avenue, Sybill Hill road and Vernon Avenue. Because of the totally inappropriate location and access/egress of this development, it must be refused.

Drainage Construction, Waste Management and Other Impacts will be Detrimental to the People of Raheny and Clontarf.

The O’Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates flood risk and drainage assessment is again not reassuring to my constituents. We await major works on the River Nanekin to alleviate serious flooding of Killester and Donnycarney during the past few years. There are also ongoing drainage issues with the River Santry which flows through Raheny Village and along the eastern boundary of St. Anne’s Park. Drainage issues are now the most important element in the planning of any construction in Dublin Bay North and the brief O’Connor Sutton Cronin report only addresses those issues in a cursory manner.

Likewise, the AWN Consulting report on the Construction Demolition Waste Management Plan and the OCSC External Lighting Report do little to reduce the grave concerns of my constituents. Clearly St. Anne’s Park and nearby homes in St. Anne’s, Ennafort, and the broader district will be greatly and negatively impacted with dust, noise and traffic during any construction period to 2018. Thereafter the lighting of the high-rise element of the estate will forever remove the rural and garden atmosphere of St. Anne’s in the evenings and early morning. For these reasons also, Plan 3899/15 should be turned down.

Conclusion: Reject this Crass Proposed Development.

Before reading this application and writing this objection, I again visited the area of St. Anne’s all around the proposed development. The main avenue and arboretum will never be the same again if this plan is allowed to proceed. The children of St. Paul’s and our local sports clubs will lose their 6 fine pitches and proposed enhancement to pitches across the avenue in St. Anne’s will happen anyway over time as St. Anne’s Park is protected and enhanced. Like any other large secondary school, St. Paul’s is also entitled anyway to a new sports hall and other necessary school buildings. But none of those improvements necessitate the covering in concrete of a large part of the historic St. Anne’s Park (purchased by my predecessor for Dublin City, Jim Larkin TD). On all of the above grounds, Plan 3899/15 must be refused.

Tags: Building, Crekav, Raheny, St. Anne’s Park

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON URGENT NEED FOR DREDGING OF HOWTH HARBOUR

27 Nov 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Howth is one of the most beloved and visited seaside towns in Dublin and Ireland and one of the country’s six national working fishery harbours. It is also the premier fishery port on the east coast with a synchro lift and repair yard. Tourism to Howth port and peninsula has increased greatly, with as many as 2,000 visitors per day and as many as 750,000 visitors per annum. Howth is an historical area, which was recognised as a trading port in the medieval era and was the port of Dublin in the early 19th century. It has many great working fishery and marine leisure traditions and is also famed for delicious white fish, when in quota, and Dublin Bay prawns caught off this picturesque part of Dublin Bay. The peninsula also has had a special amenity area for two decades and is part of the new Dublin Bay UNESCO biosphere reserve, which I proposed.

In recent weeks, I have been contacted by members of the Howth Harbour Users Action Group who are very concerned about the build-up of silt in the harbour and the damaging effect this is having on all aspects of this important harbour. Howth Harbour has not been dredged for decades. I understand it was last dredged in 1981 or 1982 and I do not recall a dredging programme in the harbour in many years representing the area. The action group reports that this neglect has led to almost 6 ft. of silt building up in the harbour and an operational crisis for all the fishing and leisure craft which use it.

In reply to a recent question, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, referred to the fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme 2011 to 2014 and noted that a sum of €4.2 million that was invested in maintenance, development and upgrading works at the Howth fishery harbour. Funding of €1.79 million was approved for maintaining and developing the harbour centre this year. I understand the funding this year was allocated to continue work on upgrading the electrical system, provision of a small craft pontoon and traffic management works. While this investment is very welcome, it is also critical that the harbour does not become unworkable as a result of the build-up of silt.

The Howth Harbour Users Action Group, led by Mr. Sean Doran and made up of representatives of the yacht club, the boat and sailing clubs, a large trawling company and local businesses, states that the lack of action on dredging is threatening the future of Howth Harbour. The build-up of silt is affecting fishing fleets entering the harbour as they are fearful of being run aground at low tide. As a result, they must lie off the port. The group reports that even medium-sized fishing trawlers cannot enter the harbour at low tide because the draught is so shallow and that groundings of vessels are much more commonplace than previously. The successful Dublin Bay ferry has also been badly affected since the build-up of silt makes it virtually impossible to adhere to published timetables. Marine tourism and leisure use at the harbour is also seriously disrupted by the large build-up of silt. The action group states that this also compromises the safety of harbour users from the boat and yacht clubs. The group is fearful that a serious accident could result if the port is not dredged soon.

It appears from the budget allocation to the Department for 2016 that funding is available to carry out a dredging programme. Budget 2015 provided for the first increase in funding in the marine area since 2009. Almost €18 million was spent on fishery harbours development last year, with €14.9 million specifically allocated to the six fishery centres. Last month, in a reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister informed me that €150,000 had been provided for site investigation works to investigate the material to be dredged in any future dredging project. Has this money been spent and has the study been carried out and completed? Will the information gathered be necessary for a dumping at sea licence? If the report on the investigative works is available, what is the timeframe for proceeding with the dredging project?

It is incomprehensible that a dredging programme has not been carried out in Howth for nearly 40 years. The Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, is not directly responsible for the matter I raise. It is disappointing that the Minister is not present to respond. I understand this problem was raised when the Minister’s father was the Minister with responsibility for the marine in the mid-1990s and nothing has been done since.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this issue. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is responsible under statute for the six designated fishery harbour centres which are located at Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Dingle, Rossaveel and Killybegs. All six fishery centres are, first and foremost, working fishery harbours which provide essential services and facilities to the fishing industry around the coastline. Each fishery harbour centre has unique features which facilitate a broad range of other diverse activities which are important from both an economic and social perspective. The Department is conscious of the importance of both fishing and non-fishing activities at the harbours. This involves day-to-day operational support by harbour staff and management and development and repair of infrastructure, subject to available financial resources.

I am pleased to advise the House that, notwithstanding the prevailing economic environment in which we operate, in excess of €4.2 million has been invested in maintenance, development and upgrading works at Howth as part of the Department’s fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme between 2011 and 2014. The Minister also approved funding of €1.79 million for the maintenance and development of Howth fishery harbour centre in 2015. Major works for 2015 include the continued upgrading of the electrical system, provision of a small craft pontoon and traffic management works.

Siltation in Howth harbour is recognised as an issue and is being kept under review. It has been discussed with various stakeholders, and officials from the Department attended the Howth Harbour Users Forum on 29 January 2015 and used the occasion to have a number of tangential meetings with users, at which the issue of dredging was discussed. A further meeting with the Howth Yacht Club was held on 17 July at which the question of dredging was again the main item of discussion.

As part of the 2015 fishery harbour centre development programme, the Minister sanctioned €150,000 to carry out site investigation works in Howth for the west pier pontoon and middle pier upgrade. The site investigation contractor commenced work on site in early November and the work is expected to be substantially complete by the end of the year. It is anticipated that the report on the site investigation will be issued in early 2016. This report will include information on the nature of the material to be dredged and the extent of contaminated material within the dredge footprint. This information is required to prepare a dumping at sea licence application which will be necessary for the commencement of any dredging project in future. It will also provide the basis for an informed estimate of the cost of dredging the harbour at Howth. As with all other developments in the six fishery harbour centres, a dredging project at Howth fishery harbour centre will be considered under future capital programmes on the basis of available Exchequer funding and competing priorities. The suite of projects for inclusion in the 2016 programme is being considered and the Minister will make an announcement on these in due course.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister of State for his response, which provides information that I have received previously. As I stated, the expenditure of €4.2 million was between 2011 and 2014, as was the allocation of €1.7 million which was supposed to have been spent this year. The additional funding since 2011 was critical to preparing and commencing this urgently needed programme of dredging.

The Minister referred to a €150,000 preparatory report which will hopefully be ready in the next month or so. I will certainly welcome that. I hope it will be published widely and that we will then know exactly what has to be done. In his reply, the Minister of State said there was no information on costings except that the cost will be substantial. We know the cost will be significant, and I hope the Department begins to work on the costings immediately on receipt of the scoping report on how the dredging project can be carried out and its likely timeframe. The Howth Harbour action group accepts that the planning and licensing process takes time, but it could push the dredging project way out to 2017, 2018 or 2019. Obviously, that is not going to be good for any of the leisure users or the working fishery users of the harbour. I notice that in the 2016 budget expenditure report, the Minister has €200 million set aside each year for capital projects in 2016, 2017 and 2018. It would have been handy to have him here to discuss this. While in overall global terms it might be small, a significant sum of perhaps €2 million or €3 million should be set aside to facilitate proceeding with the project as a matter of urgency.

When I tabled a recent parliamentary question to the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, he could not give me figures on the employment statistics relating to the private and State organisations operating out of the harbour centre. Hopefully that information will become available now, along with information on all aspects of the economy of the centre. Mr. Doran’s enterprise alone supports approximately 100 jobs. The bottom line is that marine safety is the core value for all seafarers and their support workers onshore, including the Minister of State and me. The great inconvenience and danger posed to fishing and leisure craft must end and we must proceed with a dredging programme as quickly as possible. Hopefully, the Government might be able to include the dredging project for Howth as part of the good news in the pre-budget announcements before its term of office ends.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: It is an important issue and I agree with many of the points the Deputy has made. On the publication of the report early next year, local Deputies and interested parties may be in a position to meet with the Minister. I will do my best to facilitate that, as it would be the best way to proceed. I will ask the Minister about the capital allocation and see if he can move the issue forward. Howth Harbour is a wonderful amenity, and the issues the Deputy raised are extremely important. We must be in a position to act on them and proceed in an appropriate manner once the report is available. It should be published, available and transparent and we should be able to act on it as soon as it is there. Deputy Broughan and I can facilitate a meeting with the Minister to ensure that we can act on it.

Tags: dredging, Dublin Bay, Howth Harbour, UNESCO Biosphere

 

DÁIL QUESTIONS WITH MINISTER WHITE ON EIRCODE

10 Nov 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he will report to Dáil Éireann on his response to ongoing public concern regarding the escalating costs and the tendering process for Eircode; and if he will make a statement on the matter.  [38989/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Last July the Minister launched the Eircode identification system at a cost, it was said, of €27 million. We have since found out from the report to the Committee of Public Accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General that the cost now stands at approximately €38 million. It is generally agreed that the system will cost at least €50 million but the real question is whether it is a good system. Is the Minister potentially leaving a complete white elephant behind him in the Department, a system that will be unusable? It seems that our emergency services, An Post, commercial suppliers and many others are still using traditional addresses. How many people are using the Eircode system now?

Deputy Alex White: The cost of the contract with Capita, which was awarded a ten year licence to develop and maintain the post code system, is €27 million excluding VAT or €33.2 million including VAT. This position has not changed since I last reported on the cost of the contract and covers the design of the Eircode, encoding public sector databases, accessing the GeoDirectory database, the launch and implementation of Eircodes and the ongoing management of the system for the licence period.

The total spend to date on the post codes project amounts to €19.5 million, including VAT. Of this, Capita has been paid €17.5 million on foot of delivery of agreed milestones. The bulk of this figure, €11.5 million, was spent on encoding public sector bodies’ databases. Apart from payments to Capita, €2 million has been spent on specialist costs arising in the period from 2009 to date.

My Department commenced the procurement process for the national postcode system in 2011. An open and competitive procurement process was conducted in accordance with Department of Finance and European Union procurement frameworks. My Department received correspondence from the European Commission in 2012 regarding certain aspects of the procurement process. In 2013, the Commission informed the Department that the matter had been closed on the basis that it could not establish any breach of EU procurement law that would justify the opening of an infringement procedure.

Subsequently, the Commission requested that certain measures be adopted by Ireland regarding the clarity of language to be used in future procurements. My Department responded to this request after consulting the Office of Government Procurement. In recent correspondence, the Commission confirmed that there are no grounds for reopening an investigation into this matter, which it now regards as closed.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Is it the case that the EU procurement unit found the tendering process for at least three major contracts to be highly irregular and faulty? It is highly unusual for the Comptroller and Auditor General to criticise a public sector contract as severely as he did in the case of the postcode contract. I was astonished to read an article in the Sunday Independent recently by the distinguished journalist Eoghan Harris in which he described what appears to be a very poor tendering process for the postcode contract. He refers, for example, to Mr. Gary Delaney, who developed the Loc8 code, a satellite-navigation-based postcode system that he was prepared to give to the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive free of charge. In Mr. Delaney’s view, smaller companies were grossly discriminated against in the tendering process. For example, bidding companies were required to have an annual turnover of €40 million. I am aware of similar requirements in other areas of Government procurement. Why was Mr. Delaney’s innovative and free postcode system not considered? Why did we end up with such an expense? As I stated, the tendering process for the postcode system has been severely criticised. I note also that the Department awarded at least two consultancy contracts without any tendering process.   It was reported recently that 87% of people know their Eircodes. Does the Minister know his Eircode?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are over time. I must call the Minister.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: My Eircode is D13 TX82. However, I do not use it, and I am not aware of many people who use their Eircodes.

Deputy Alex White: To return the favour to Deputy Broughan, my Eircode is D6W WN99.

On the procurement issue, Deputies will understand that I was not the Minister during the procurement process. I am perfectly happy to report to the House on precisely what occurred, however. I outlined the position regarding the complaint submitted to the European Commission, which it subsequently investigated. On foot of the complaint, the Commission contacted the Department on certain aspects of the procurement process and the issues were addressed in correspondence with the Commission. The complaint was not upheld and the Commission has confirmed that the file on the complaint was closed in 2014.

It is important to stress that this was a pilot complaint and not a formal infringement under the EU treaties. The Commission did not give any indication that the tendering process was invalid. The European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services advised in 2014 that the Commission department “could not establish any violation of EU public procurement law that would justify the opening of an infringement procedure.”

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Use of the Eircode has been optional since it came into operation in July. Is the Minister concerned that only a small number of bodies, including commercial entities, are utilising the postcode system? Is the reason for the low take-up the random nature of the system selected? The Minister and I both referred to our Eircodes. It is striking that the numbering system in housing estates and townlands in rural areas is random. This appears to be one of the reasons that emergency bodies, for example, do not use Eircodes. Would it have been preferable not to have proceeded with the introduction of the Eircode and instead, in this era of e-mail and so forth, to have waited a little longer and utilised GPS, satellite navigation systems, Google Maps, etc.?

Deputy Alex White: The National Ambulance Service is already constructing a new computer-aided dispatch system to use Eircodes and it will be deployed in its new state-of-the-art national call centre. The licensing terms are being finalised between GeoDirectory and the service, which will facilitate the inclusion of Eircodes in its database before the end of the year. The service has welcomed the introduction of Eircodes as they will facilitate the speedier deployment of ambulances.

There are now 21 value-added resellers registered with Eircode and they will provide a variety of services including database cleansing, address look-up and geocoding. One can see a full list on the Eircode website. Some residual licensing issues are being finalised between the postcode contractor and GeoDirectory, which will facilitate the inclusion of Eircodes in commercial databases. Similarly, with respect to sat nav and similar technologies, deployment will take place in early course. The licensing arrangements are being finalised and I expect to see that occur in the coming weeks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We must move on to the next question.

Tags: An Post, Communications, Eircode, Post Codes

 

DÁIL QUESTION WITH MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT ON HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

5 Nov 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will report to Dáil Éireann on the implementation plan for the State’s response to homelessness and the Government’s action plan on homelessness; if he will outline the Government’s achievements under both plans; if he will say how much remains to be achieved before the end of this Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter.  [31708/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan:  We on the northside of Dublin have seen very few of the new units to which the Minister of State referred. Reference was made earlier to the 3,600 individuals on the Wexford housing list. We have almost double that number in Dublin Bay North. Among the 750 families in emergency accommodation are 1,600 children. The Minister has published the draft planning and development (urgent social housing supply) policy directive 2015, which deal with section 179 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2015 and Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2015. Why was that not done 18 months ago?

Deputy Alan Kelly: I am fully committed to dealing with homelessness, it is my top priority. I do not say that in any kind of glib way; I genuinely mean it. There is a necessity to focus on providing suitable emergency accommodation for families. The greatest concern is in respect of rough sleepers, which is particularly an issue in Dublin and other cities. Yesterday, I launched the Be Winter Ready programme, assisted by the excellent work of Cathal Morgan and his team in the Dublin Region Homeless Executive.

We have brought forward a number of comprehensive action plans to tackle homelessness. If the Deputy looks into it, he will see that virtually all of those plans have been executed and substantial progress has been made on their objectives. Progress updates on all the action plans are brought on a monthly basis to the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy and public service reform. Given the huge amount of work that is ongoing on a weekly and daily basis, I will not go through the 50 different actions.

Many of them have been successful. The ministerial direction, which I presume the Deputy supported, in respect of the 50% increase in the allocations policy for people who are homeless or vulnerable has also been successful. I refer to the public awareness campaigns, the work being done by Threshold and the possibility of increasing rent supplement payments. Intercepting people who vulnerable is also working well. The changes to the housing assistance payment, HAP, in respect of homeless families in Dublin were necessary measures. Many different measures are required to meet the needs of people who are becoming homeless. Everybody who is homeless has complex needs, either at a personal level or from an economic point of view.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Housing is their first need.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Broughan, on your feet, please.

Deputy Alan Kelly: We are putting together measures across a whole range of areas.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister for his reply. The first need of people is housing. When will the Minister make an announcement in the House about rent certainty? When I called four years ago for rent controls that request was met with howls of protests from Fianna Fáil and, later on, from Fine Gael. The work of those two parties down through the years in relation to development and rent has been representative of landlord interests. That is the problem.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Rubbish.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: That is the problem about the—–

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: That is rubbish and Deputy Broughan knows it.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: That is the reality of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael – the iron alliance.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy, this is question time. Would you put your question?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: When can we expect an announcement on rent certainty? The Minister will be aware that Senator Aideen Hayden has done a lot of work with Threshold on this matter. When will he make an announcement on it?

The Minister did not respond to my question about the draft planning and development (urgent social housing supply) directive, which I read very carefully. Is that a direction to the county and city councils to get their act together and start delivering? Is that what that document is saying in relation to Part 8 and section 179 of the relevant planning legislation? The Minister should have issued that directive 18 months ago. On modular homes—–

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy, please allow the Minister to respond. I will let you back in.

Deputy Alan Kelly: I have firm conversations with all local authorities on a regular basis. I met with them only a couple of weeks ago and a couple of weeks prior to that. I met with all of the CEOs and, where necessary, their directors of housing. The Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, and, where necessary, the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, and I have met with the local authorities, to whom we emphasised that this is our number one priority. Provision of social housing and facilitating private housing where necessary, particularly in areas where there are real issues, is the number one priority. I cannot make it any clearer than that. I accept that we need to build houses. I am doing everything I can to have houses built. There is a planning process in place for a reason and it has to be adhered to.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: In relation to the directive which the Minister issued, which I am sure the Ceann Comhairle has also read, what are the implications of it? Approximately 18 months ago, on the final sitting day prior to the Dáil going into recess, we had a debate on housing policy, at which time the Minister could have taken the line of equipping the local authorities with the capital funding needed to launch a social housing programme. That is what the Minister’s predecessor, the late Jimmy Tully, did when in office. As stated by Fintan O’Toole, during the poorest decades tens of thousands of local authorities homes were built. Like the Minister and, I am sure, other Members, I lived in a local authority home. They sustained our families. This is not being done now because of the influence of Fine Gael in government and the previous influence of Fianna Fáil in ending the social housing programme.

I attended the modular housing exhibition in the North Strand. The impression is being given that use of this housing is a stop-gap measure to address the needs of people in emergency housing accommodation. I was informed at that exhibition that these units have a life span of 60 years. Are we, in terms of the proposed use of this housing, creating another problem? We need tens of thousands of bricks and mortar homes. These homes were needed up to 18 months ago but, unfortunately, the Government has not delivered them.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: We needed them 15 years ago.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: There were needed 20 or 25 years ago.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Where was the Deputy then?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I was calling for them then too.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are over time on this question. We must move on.

Tags: homelessness, housing, Modular homes, social housing

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON SOCIAL WELFARE BILL 2015

5 Nov 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I welcome the partial restorations of pension payments under sections 3 and 4 and Schedule 1, the partial restoration of child benefit payments under section 7, the restoration of the respite care grant under section 6, the partial back-tracking of the family income supplement earnings threshold under section 8, the changes to the carer’s allowance under section 9 and the amendments to certain PRSI credits and earning thresholds under section 10 of the Bill.

It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge these partial restorations, yet it is also disrespectful of the Minister of State and the Tánaiste to refer to them as increases. The social impact assessment, based on ESRI’s SWITCH model analysis, about which the Tánaiste told us this morning, may show tiny gains under budget 2016, but these partial restorations of levels of benefit and income for some of the most vulnerable citizens come after seven years of brutal austerity and horrendous cuts. They cannot undo the damage already done to households and individuals. The basic minimum rate of social welfare has stayed exactly the same throughout this Government’s term despite the Tánaiste’s input.

Sections 3 and 4 and Schedule 1 provide for the partial restoration of a number of payments, including the State pension. In many interactions with my constituents in Dublin Bay North, I found great disappointment at the €3 a week change to State pensions. Many told me they were hoping for a €10 a week increase, or at least a €5 increase. As one senior citizen said to me a few days ago, the increase would barely cover the cost of a daily newspaper.

Once again, in the 2015 Social Welfare Bill, the Tánaiste refuses to address the serious cuts to pensions of deferred members of the Irish aviation superannuation scheme, the IASS. She also has not addressed the serious complaints of the ESB retired staff association and countless other public service pensioners who were left with drastically reduced payments due to austerity levies and other cuts introduced by this outgoing Government.

What of women workers who spent many years working in the home and rearing families? For nearly five years, the Tánaiste has singly failed to remedy the unfair predicament of women workers who had perhaps made 15 to 25 years of social insurance contributions. These women are now being disadvantaged as pensioners at 66 years of age, particularly following the Tánaiste’s changes to contributory pension qualification bands. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Humphreys, has come across that experience as well. One hard working constituent who has just turned 66 years of age and spent a lot of time rearing a great family is bitterly disappointed that she will receive just €196 per week instead of the higher amount of €233 because the Tánaiste has failed to address this serious issue of gender inequality.

I welcome the provision in section 6, amending section 225 of the principal Act, restoring fully the respite care grant from €1,375 to €1,700. However, the provision in section 5, renaming the grant as the carer’s support grant, is disingenuous. The Minister of State knows that I was a social welfare spokesperson in this House for a good number of years and we always intended to have a carer’s support grant in addition to the respite care grant.

The Social Insurance Fund is set to increase to almost €8.9 billion next year, recovering from the devastating deficit of almost €2 billion at the worst time of the crash. The projected surplus of €216 million is welcome but it also reminds us that a huge percentage of the social protection budget comes from workers’ weekly contributions. Neo-liberal journalists and economists like to talk about a €20 billion social protection budget while ignoring the role of the Social Insurance Fund. In reality, the Tánaiste and her Government have followed the prescription of those reactionary and well-heeled ideologues and relentlessly kept the social assistance budget under €12 billion during the 31st Dáil, with terrible consequences for the most vulnerable sections of our society.

In her speech this morning, the Tánaiste referred to the cost of administering the rent supplement scheme for approximately 63,800 people and noted that it will be more than €298 million this year. The Minister of State, in particular, knows that this represents a savage cut in rent supports over the lifetime of this Government. In 2010, the cost of the scheme, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will remember, was approximately €520 million to house 96,500 people and families. The Tánaiste’s mantra since 2011 has been that raising rent supplement levels would push up rent levels nationally, yet she has known all that time that the Government could legally introduce rent certainty and regulation. We know this from the work of Senator Aideen Hayden and various barristers who briefed us and helped push towards the uplifts in rent thresholds.

When I called for rent regulation in this House four years ago, we immediately saw bitter hostility to the proposal from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which are the political parties of landlords. The Tánaiste and her party knew throughout the lifetime of this Dáil that Fine Gael would never agree to rent regulation or certainty. They also knew Ireland was facing the worst housing crisis since the 1920s, yet the Minister of State and his party persisted in joining and staying in a Fine Gael-dominated Government which has given us five years of paralysis and terrible suffering for homeless families. I was the only Deputy to stand up in UCD and say not to enter government, that we could be the leader of the Opposition, oppose a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael Government, run them out of office and have a government of the left that would look after people and not yield to crazy austerity economics.

The Minister said this morning that people who vote against this budget will be putting politics before people but it is the Government that has put politics before people. I apologise to Deputy Creighton for going over time.

 

Tags: austerity, carers, pensions, Social Welfare Bill

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON PROPOSED JOB LOSSES AT CADBURY COOLOCK

4 Nov 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the current status of the Cadbury and Mondelez jobs that were announced to have been in jeopardy earlier in 2015; if these job losses have been reversed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37154/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: We had the bad news in late February of the possible loss of 160 jobs in Coolock, Rathmore and Tallaght. We have not had any update since mid-summer. I understand the Minister established an interagency group led by Enterprise Ireland.

What progress has been made on this? Have the agency and the Department had any talks with 3G Capital, the ultimate owner of Mondelez Kraft Heinz?

Deputy Richard Bruton: I have had discussions with Mondelez at senior executive level and the company has committed to me that it will invest in its operation here with the aim of achieving best-in-class production processes. Enterprise Ireland has also been in contact with the company on a continuous basis regarding the assistance it could provide for restructuring to minimise job losses. The workplace relations services of my Department have also been actively engaged in this process.

Labour Court hearings between the company and the unions concerned took place on 9 October 2015. The Labour Court recommendation for the production personnel represented by Unite and SIPTU is to continue the negotiation process with management on headcount reduction, shift pattern changes, outsourcing and a two year pay deal over a four week period beginning on 29 October 2015. The management expect the unions will ballot their members in the coming weeks to determine support for the proposed changes.

The Labour Court recommendation for the electricians represented by TEEU and the fitters represented by the TEEU and Unite is for the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, to mediate between management and unions for a four week period beginning on 28 October 2015. Both parties have engaged with the mediation process in the WRC.

Immediately after the announcement by Mondelez, I established, as the Deputy has acknowledged, an inter-agency group to co-ordinate the response to the proposed job losses. The group, chaired by Enterprise Ireland, is seeking to secure alternative employment for Coolock, Tallaght and Rathmore and to ensure that departing workers have access to supports they need from State agencies for retraining, access to social welfare supports, access to advice on employment rights and access to advice and support for those workers who intend to start their own businesses.

I understand that the site in Tallaght will cease production in April 2016 with the severance and exit packages agreed. The company has engaged Penna O’Shea, the career transition provider, to assist the workforce in planning their future. Enterprise Ireland has visited the Tallaght site and will share the plant specification and worker profile with its clients. The plant specification and worker profile has also been shared with IDA Ireland. The inter-agency group has obtained agreement from SOLAS eCollege to offer any existing courses free of charge to all learners in Mondelez, Tallaght.

I have already directed Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland to step up their efforts to find alternative projects for the areas affected. I continue to monitor the situation very closely and I have arranged to meet the company representatives shortly.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister for that response. I note detailed counterproposals were put forward six or seven months ago by the SIPTU, Unite and TEEU trade unions and by members of the workforce themselves who are obviously expert in this element of food production and it was feared some of the key brands, for example, the Twirl and the Snack, would be outsourced to Poland. The Minister stated we are in a critical period in these negotiations and referred to the role of the commission, etc. Is the position that the Minister will be able to save those jobs?

What response has he received? The ultimate mother group of this company, 3G Capital, which has a Brazilian principal in Rio de Janeiro and which has assembled this considerable food combine and has a bad track record in taking over companies, devastating their workforces, taking out value and leaving them. Has the Minister made contact with 3G Capital? There was word of a €11.7 million investment programme for Coolock and Rathmore. Has any of that been seen?

As the Minister will be aware, this is against a background where there are still more than 8,000 unemployed attending the two employment offices in Kilbarrack and Coolock in the constituency the Minister and I represent. As the Minister will be aware, there is still considerable anxiety and worry in the broader Coolock area that we could have further job losses here.

Deputy Richard Bruton: There is, indeed, an investment programme which the company has committed to but it requires a restructuring of its operations. Its intention is to achieve state-of-the-art production lines in Coolock. There were counterproposals and Enterprise Ireland supported the workers in furnishing those counterproposals. The position is they have entered into the detailed negotiations that I outlined in terms of the restructuring proposals the company is seeking and those are ongoing with both the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission playing a role to seek to find solutions. As I indicated, Enterprise Ireland will also support the company. It has programmes, such as lean manufacturing programmes, which can allow a company successfully achieve the competitiveness it needs.

Unfortunately, this is a situation where the company has indicated that restructuring is needed to be competitive in its markets and we are seeking to work with that and minimise the job losses. I share the Deputy’s concern that we need to minimise the job losses but I would point out that Dublin has been enjoying a recovery. While there are some companies experiencing difficulties with which we deal, and it is a fight every day, there are also companies which are growing h2ly. We work to achieve such growth as well.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: On the Government’s Twitter account, #allaboutjobs, it is notable that the Minister trumpets when new jobs arrive but he tells us nothing when there are serious job losses. On overall job figures, the Government mentions 126,000 jobs created, which is way below the total level of employment in late 2007 or early 2008. The Government is still a long way off that mark.

Is the Minister hopeful, from the initiatives taken by the inter-agency group, that these jobs can be protected, which is the key desire of our constituents and their families? What other assistance can the Minister give to ensure that the promised investment in the plants will happen as soon as possible and that we could look forward to a positive future?

Has the Department done anything in relation to the protection of iconic Irish brands, given the kind of attack on branded products in recent times and the difficulty of maintaining clear brands in the food area? All Irish food products are under this kind of threat from the German multiples and other companies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister to conclude. We must make good progress.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I can assure the Deputy much of the work of my Department focuses on companies which need to restructure to protect jobs and both IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have transformation programmes to help companies do that. They have been successful. Job losses in the IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland companies are at the lowest level in a decade and we are succeeding in managing companies.

In this case, as the Deputy will be aware, the company has indicated that there will be job losses but we are working to ensure there will be as few as possible and that the remaining jobs will be placed on a secure footing with the necessary investment and the efficiencies of modern production lines that can give them a secure future. That is what we are working to achieve. As I indicated, there are continuing negotiations with that aim in mind.

 

Tags: Cadburys, Coolock, Enterprise Ireland, Mondelez

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE TOPICAL ISSUES DEBATE ON DRINK-DRIVING CONVICTION RATES

27 Oct 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: At the end of August of this year, working in collaboration with Ms Susan Gray and the PARC road safety group, I received a reply from the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to my Parliamentary Question No. 511 of 14 July. The reply detailed by district court the number of persons listed and convicted and licence numbers recorded for drink driving offences between January 2013 and May 2015. Ms Susan Gray and PARC have done and, indeed, continue to do Trojan work in the area of road safety, highlighting loopholes in our legislation and the failure to implement our traffic laws. It was through representations by PARC and its analysis of the figures that we uncovered the shocking level of drink driving prosecutions not resulting in convictions as highlighted by The Irish Times this week. Of the 20,000 plus cases listed between January 2013 and May 2015, just 8,391, or 40%, received a conviction while a minuscule 1,647, or 20%, had their licence details recorded in court. County Offaly had the highest rate of convictions at 68%, County Kerry had the lowest at 29% and 21 out of the 26 counties had lower than 50% conviction rates. These figures are unacceptable and compare very badly with our UK and other EU neighbours. The UK has a 97% conviction rate for drink driving prosecutions.   The response of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, to the media in light of these worrying figures was that his Department’s officials had begun work on consolidating our comprehensive Road Traffic Acts. I remember asking the Minister about this previously and he told me in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 611 on the 24 January:

As I indicated to the House in December last, I propose to begin the process of consolidating road traffic legislation this year. A considerable amount of work is involved in this exercise involving as it does the examination and review of all primary and secondary legislation going back to 1961.

He re-iterated that the work would commence this year, but we are still waiting. This type of behaviour by the Government in kicking the can down the road has become commonplace in a range of policy areas including housing, health care, Irish Water and, now, the safety of road users in Ireland. Yet another example of this was the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and, specifically, its Minister misleading the Dáil on the issue of breathalyzer test reports being produced and presented in both English and Irish. A month ago, Mr. Justice Seamus Noonan ruled in the High Court that these reports must be provided in both languages. On 24 March of this year, however, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, in response to concerns of PARC and myself, reassured me in a reply to Parliamentary Question No. 984 on this very issue. I had asked him to amend Statutory Instrument No. 541 of the Road Traffic Act 2011 to close any possible loophole. He said, “I am satisfied following consultation with the Garda that there is no requirement to change the Road Traffic Act 2010 to make amendments of the kind suggested by the Deputy”. Yet, six months after this statement, a High Court judge disagreed with his interpretation of the law. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not here to take part in this debate. It is clear he misled the Dáil. The Acting Chairman is a senior parliamentarian and will agree that he should come to the House and correct the record. He misled the Dáil.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard Durkan): I am loath to interrupt, but the Deputy cannot accuse someone of misleading the Dáil. It is a serious allegation. I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: He misled a Member of Dáil Éireann in this regard.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan): The Deputy must withdraw the remark.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: He gave wrong information to Dáil Éireann on this very serious matter in relation to drink driving. Today, The Irish Times covered another shocking story and reported that between January 2013 and March 2015 521 drivers were already disqualified at the time of conviction for involvement in a collision causing serious injury or death. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, could not tell us how many of these drivers were actually disqualified when these serious crashes took place. Figures released to me by the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, show that 17,481 drivers were disqualified for road traffic offences in the same timeframe. However, on 9 April this year, the RSA reported to me that it had informed the Garda of just 48 disqualifications. These are also very serious figures.   We have heard from sources in the Courts Service that it considers that there is no requirement in law to record the licence when a driver is disqualified in court. While the Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, has been thrown in at the deep end by the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, I ask him to confirm if it is the case that there is no requirement in legislation for the Courts Service to record the licence of a disqualified driver. That will be a key aspect of the Minister of State’s reply.   A key aspect of this issue is the cut in personnel and resources of An Garda Síochána carried out by this and the previous Government in the austerity years since the great recession. There has especially been a cut in the traffic corps. The figures released also put the spotlight on the Courts Service, the performance of some district judges and the seemingly Flann O’Brien or Kafkaesque atmosphere of some District Courts. It is time for accountability and for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to come to the House to clarify two important points of law which I put to him this afternoon. I put them to the Minister of State now albeit I know he is not briefed to reply. I ask that the Minister, Deputy Donoghoe, come in at the earliest opportunity. The Acting Chairman was making these very points today and is the very man to ask the Minister to come to the House and correct the record.

Deputy Damien English: Where do I start? About 20 topical issues were raised there. I understand that most of them are very topical and we will certainly get the Deputy answers to them. I will not be able to give him the answers as most of them are above my pay grade. I will get the Deputy the answers he requires to some of the questions he has.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Get me the Minister. I want the Minister.

Deputy Damien English: I am here to respond to the issue the Deputy raised which was the urgent need for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to bring forward consolidated road traffic legislation before the end of the Government’s term given the recent revelations. That is the issue the Deputy raised and that is the issue I am responding to. I apologise on behalf of the Minister who could not make it here this evening. The Deputy knows that the nature of his office means it is not always possible to change his diary and attend here. I have no doubt that he would like to be here. I record that it is not in the nature of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, to mislead the Dáil. I have no doubt that he will address the issue the Deputy raised there because it is not in his nature. The Deputy knows the man well and that it is not something he does. The Deputy will be willing to admit that.

We are currently working on a road traffic Bill 2015 with the intention of enacting it before the end of the year. It is being drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel at present. This is the current priority in road traffic legislation and will be dealt with before consolidation can begin. The principal focus of the Bill is on measures to address driving under the influence of drugs. The new provisions will enable gardaí to conduct roadside tests for the presence of drugs, make the presence of certain specified drugs while driving an offence, and provide for tougher penalties for those driving under the influence of multiple drugs, or drugs in combination with alcohol. The Bill will also include measures to ensure mutual recognition of driver disqualifications between Ireland and the UK and create an option for road authorities to introduce a 20 km/h speed limit in built-up areas. After the passage of the 2015 Bill, the Department will begin examining the process of consolidation, which is the issue the Deputy has raised. This will, as a first step, involve a scoping exercise to estimate what is necessary, how much time will be required, and what resources will need to be allocated to the project.

Road traffic legislation in Ireland is based on the Road Traffic Act 1961. This has been amended numerous times. There have been 15 Road Traffic Acts since that of 1961. There have also been other Acts which have made material changes to road traffic law including the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975, the Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1987, the Taxi Regulation Act 2003, the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006, the Road Safety Authority Act 2006, and the Road Safety Authority (Commercial Vehicle Roadworthiness) Act 2012. There has been widespread agreement for some time that the legislation in this area has become extremely complex and is in need of consolidation. That is exactly what the Deputy is raising tonight and we all agree with him. Certainly, the Department agrees. We are committed as a Government to doing this. However, this is not a short-term project. It cannot be completed in a couple of months. As someone who was involved in the Companies Act consolidation process, I note that it is a lengthy process if it is to be done right. Consolidation will require more than passage of the legislation as it currently stands in a single Act. It will entail careful review of the legislation being consolidated in order to identify points where it can be clarified, simplified and improved. Consolidation will lead to much h2er legislation.

A project of this kind will require time and resources, and will take a number of years. This, for example, has been the case with the Companies Acts and the Finance Acts previously.

None the less, as these precedents have shown and as I can attest to, having been a part of that process, it is worth doing. It is worth taking the time to get it right as such a consolidation can be expected to be the basis of road traffic law for many decades to come.

While consolidation will be a major step forward, we need to be realistic and remember that it will not solve every problem. Road traffic legislation is perhaps the most frequently contested legislation in the land and is likely to remain so. This is only right as people are entitled to challenge the law in the courts and it is the proper constitutional role of the courts to interpret legislation. We should be aware that consolidation, while it should simplify and improve matters, will not bring an end to this process. However, it will help outcomes.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: To date this year, 127 people have lost their lives on the roads and many hundreds more families have been traumatised by serious injuries. When I was transport spokesperson, it was calculated that each fatality cost our nation €2 million plus. It is a costly and terrible situation in terms of the personal pain of those individuals and families. Therefore, why does the Government not get the requisite number of young barristers and solicitors working on this issue and introduce a consolidated Bill? The Minister of State could at least give a commitment to the effect that this would be a priority given the large death toll. If a single incident caused 127 deaths or the almost 200 deaths last year, the House would launch major commissions of investigation that would last for months.

Will the Minister of State have the Minister clarify the two points of law I have raised concerning drink-driving printouts and disqualified drivers? Will he confirm that these are not included in the legislation? The Minister of State referred to the 2015 Bill on the legislative programme. It relates to drug driving and the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the UK. Would it not be possible to address in that Bill the two matters I raised as well as issues such as the non-presentation of licences in court and references by judges to court poor boxes despite senior judges’ assertions that the latter is incorrect in law?

What of addressing the registering of a Fixed Charge Notices (FCNs) in order that people cannot claim they did not receive notices? We are living in the e-mail era and have passed beyond the pony and trap and bicycle for mail deliveries. Why can we not have FCNs which we all know are actually being received by the intended persons? Will the Government address the fixed charge processing system? The working group recommended that if someone could not pay after the 56-day period, he or she would get a third payment option and not have to waste the court’s time. Could these issues be addressed in the forthcoming legislation?

Some 77% of drivers summonsed for penalty point offences between 2013 and early summer 2015 were not convicted. Of those convicted, 72% did not present their licences. Some 60% of drunk drivers were not convicted. Of those convicted, 80% did not have their licence numbers recorded. Some 71% of drivers using mobile telephones were not convicted while, of those convicted, 41% did not have their licence numbers recorded. Some 96% of drivers disqualified in court did not surrender their licences and 89% of those convicted did not present their licences. The court poor box is still being used despite a High Court ruling.

As someone who has served with distinction for decades in the House, the Acting Chairman will agree that road traffic law is in crisis. Given the horrendous deaths and casualties on our roads, we need to grasp this matter, deal with it effectively and change a culture that still permits many of our fellow citizens to die on the roads needlessly.

Deputy Damien English: I agree with Deputy Broughan that this is a cultural issue. All the changes in the world to road traffic law will not be enough to stop every tragic death. Even one road death is one too many. Thankfully, there has been considerable improvement in road safety and the numbers killed in the past ten or 15 years. This has been due to successive Governments.

This is a cross-party issue that we all buy into and there is no problem in this regard. I assure the Deputy that tackling it is a priority for the Government. The consolidation process will form part of that work. The Deputy is right that we should try to fast-track it and learn from other consolidation processes. For example, I was involved in the company law consolidation process which we were able to move along more quickly in some cases than we anticipated. We should do that in this case. Extra resources were found in terms of man hours for that work. Likewise, the same should be done in this regard.

There will be a drive to make this happen. It makes it easier for the interpreters of legislation and will undoubtedly lead to better outcomes if the law is consolidated. Road safety and deaths on our roads from accidents or, as I call them, incidents—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Crashes.

Deputy Damien English: Most incidents on the road are avoidable, so they are not accidents. It is a cultural issue that goes way beyond transport, law or the Department of Justice and Equality. It stretches into education and awareness of the problem. Most people try the lottery every now and again because they believe they can win. They see the ads that say, “It could be you.” They roll the dice and try, but they never consider the negatives. Most people assume they will never be in road traffic incidents, yet the chances of it are much higher than of them winning the lottery. There is something wrong with people’s mindsets. It is in all of us. We have an attitudinal issue towards road safety. This is an issue that must be driven by every Department. I am in the Department of Education and Skills which has a major role to play in this regard.

Incidents and accidents can happen to anyone. It is in everyone’s gift to prevent them on our roads. Legislation is a part of that work. I will bring the Deputy’s questions that I could not answer to the relevant Ministers and reply to him with detailed answers.

Tags: Courts Service, disqualified drivers, Drink-driving, penalty points, road safety, RSA

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON BUDGET 2016

14 Oct 2015
With the impending general election the long suffering people finally got some respite yesterday from the implacable austerity forced on them since late 2008. In my own submission a few weeks to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, I called again for many of the positive social expenditure measures that have been included in the Government’s final budget in office. Among these, which it would be churlish not to acknowledge, are the extension of the early childhood care and education scheme from three years and two months to primary school entry, the restoration of the respite care grant to €1,700, the increase in the fuel allowance to €22.50, the partial restoration of child benefit by €5 and the investment in education to slightly reduce the pupil-teacher-ratio from 27:1 for primary schools and 18.7:1 for second level students.

Senior constituents, some of whom I, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, met in Dublin Bay North this morning, were not greatly enthused by the €3 per week increase in pensions, even if it is the first rise since 2009. This partial restoration of levels of benefit and income for the most vulnerable after seven years of brutal austerity cannot undo the damage already done to households and individuals.

The biggest disappointment of budget 2016 is, as my colleague Deputy Róisín Shortall said, the Government’s failure, particularly the Labour Party, to declare a housing emergency. The plan for NAMA to deliver 20,000 housing units by the end of 2020, with 90% to be delivered in Dublin, is simply a re-run of the old failed developer-led system. Ministers plan to give responsibility for the urgent construction of tens of thousands of homes to developers who built so many substandard fire-traps up to 2009 and have sat on their land banks while they emerged from bankruptcy, supported by us, the taxpayers and NAMA covering up for their reckless failures. The paltry increase of €20 million to ensure 3,000 social housing units are delivered in 2016 will assist only 3% or less of the citizens and households on housing waiting lists. The increase of €69 million for social housing is also paltry when the actual housing budget of €414 million remains less than one quarter or one fifth of what is actually needed. There was nothing announced yesterday in regard to rent certainty, except for the Tánaiste’s statement that it has all been decided. Why was this most critical issue not included in the budget?

One of the most ludicrous announcements yesterday from the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was that the overall budget for health has been restored to pre-crash levels of over €13 billion. However, he was contradicted by the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who rightly said that the health budget is at least €1 billion off its pre-crash peak in nominal terms. The Department of Health budget was decimated during the austerity years and while the spend is €13.2 billion, how much has been lost cumulatively since 2008? How does one quantify the suffering of patients on waiting lists, in chaotic accident and emergency departments and the desperately hard-pressed staff trying to care for them? There was no mention in the current or capital budgets about the urgently needed new accident and emergency department for Beaumont Hospital.

As stated by Deputy Billy Timmins, there is nothing in this budget about the elephant in the room, namely, Irish Water. Citizens want to know how much more of taxpayers’ money will be pumped into this direly malfunctioning utility. The ferocious vice-grip of the EU expenditure rules was again evident in the 2016 budget for the Department of Social Protection in terms of the retention of the cap on social protection spending at under €19 billion. Increases for this year are based on increases in the Social Insurance Fund.

I put forward options in my own budget submission to gain significant yields for the Exchequer from fair additional taxation, which I am sure, along with other proposals from this side of the House, ended up in the bottom draw of the Minister for Finance. Among my suggestions was the introduction of a 48% rate of tax on incomes over €100,000; a financial transaction tax , FTT, starting with an increase in stamp duty on shares; a solidarity and reparations tax on financial institutions; and a fully effective 12.5% corporation tax. A few weeks ago, Deputy Róisín Shortall highlighted during parliamentary questions the additional revenue that an effective rate of corporation tax would provide.

In his closing remarks yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, asked, “Who speaks of Syriza now?” This incredible hubris was apparently prompted by the crushing euro restructuring settlement imposed on Alex Tsipras and his Government by Chancellor Merkel and company, but there is a huge difference between Alex Tsipras’s Government and the Government of the Taoiseach which the Greek people recently recognised in their recent re-election of Syriza. Syriza at least tried to renegotiate with the Eurogroup. This outgoing Government never even tried and its failure to even try will result in a huge loss of seats next spring.

Tags: Budget 2016

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS NO.4 BUDGET 2016

13 Oct 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I wish to echo some of Deputy Ó Caoláin’s comments on this financial resolution. The health capital budget and the entire capital programme up to 2020 was extremely disappointing vis-à-vis the amount we could spend up to the time of the decision by the Minister and his party to support to the disastrous blanket guarantee for the banks. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael together brought the relevant legislation before this House and left us with billions of debt to repay year in, year out. Therefore, the size of the capital budget is very disappointing.

There are schemes in the constituency the Minister and I represent which require funding. For example, there is a crying need for a new accident and emergency unit at Beaumont Hospital and I understand this matter has been brought to the Minister’s attention. There is no indication of provision being made for this new unit in either the budget or the capital programmes. It has been very much placed on the long finger. An approach could have been taken to have a serious State programme to develop the nursing home places that we need. Analogous to the Government’s decisions regarding social housing, it continues to leave the vital area of health infrastructure largely in the hands of the private sector. I would have reservations about that.

Specifically, I would like to know the cost of the scheme. We will be dealing with the Finance Bill next week. Previous Finance Acts provided for a range of ongoing tax expenditures which have continued for decades and of which the general public have almost no knowledge. We do not receive detailed information on exactly what will be the impact of this and the other resolutions. That is rather insulting to the House and to us, as representatives. We need more nursing home places, although in the constituency that the Minister and I represent, at least one very large nursing home is about to open shortly and many others are planned. Some people have said that, in light of the current situation, housing is perhaps a greater necessity at present and perhaps these buildings should be utilised to house families. I would like to know the cost of this scheme, the ongoing cost involved and, basically, for the Government to come clean on tax expenditures

Tags: Budget 2016, Financial Resolutions, health

 

DÁIL QUESTIONS WITH TÁNAISTE ON CHANGES TO ONE PARENT FAMILY PAYMENTS

30 Sep 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the number of recipients of the one-parent family payment who have transitioned to jobseeker’s payment since the beginning of July 2015; the number of these who are in receipt of family income supplement or the back-to-work family dividend; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Following on from Deputy Durkan’s question – I think he voted for these changes, while I voted against them – the Tánaiste has mentioned some of the figures. She told colleagues last week that, since July, approximately 96% of the 25,500 affected recipients of the one-parent family payment have transitioned. Of those, however – as she just indicated to Deputy Durkan – only 8,100 transitioned to family income supplement, FIS. The Tánaiste made it a big selling point for these changes that she would be helping people into further economic independence and out of State dependency. However, is it not the reality that there is an urgent need to review the position? Organisations such as the National Women’s Council and One Family are calling for a pause, so the Tánaiste will have an opportunity in two weeks’ time in the budget to do precisely that and re-examine the matter.

Deputy Joan Burton: As the Deputy said, approximately 25,500 lone parents transitioned from the one-parent family payment scheme on 2 July 2015. Approximately 13,600 of lone parents moved to the jobseeker’s transitional payment. In fact, as the Deputy knows, they would have had no change in their income from the lone parent’s allowance. However, once a parent’s youngest child is seven years old, he or she can become involved in education and training opportunities. That is going extremely well in the Department and has been very well received. Some 2,500 lone parents moved to the jobseeker’s allowance scheme because, presumably, their youngest child was over 14 years of age. Some 8,100 lone parents moved to the family income supplement scheme.

A significant number of lone parents would be full-time homemakers and that has always been the case. We are following the example of Scandinavian countries that the Deputy has often said he admires. In those countries, children are settled in school much younger, at one, two or three years of age. In Britain and the North of Ireland, that occurs at five years of age. At that stage, one gives people an opportunity to get involved again in education, training and work. That has the best outcomes for lone parents and their children.

There are currently 8,800 customers in receipt of the back-to-work family dividend, of which over 6,500 are former one-parent family payment recipients. The back-to-work family dividend allows parents to retain the child portion of their former core social welfare weekly payment, which equals €29.80 per week per child, for two years, with full entitlement in the first year and 50% entitlement in the second year. This equates to €1,550 per child in the first year and €775 per child in the second year.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I think that is the first time the Tánaiste has mentioned in the House those figures concerning the back-to-work family dividend. Effectively, however, is there not a time limit on that? Obviously, that is useful information but we still meet a lot of lone parents who find that the system effectively leaves them worse off. Like most of us in the Chamber, the Tánaiste stood on the picket lines with the Dunnes Stores workers. Despite that fact, however, people on 15-hour contracts still find themselves that much worse off. The overall selling point of these major changes was that women would be encouraged into the workforce, yet the figures for August show that women’s unemployment is rising in important categories. Is the Department of Social Protection closely tracking and monitoring the impact that this is having on many families? As regards the new changes, we are hearing about people losing money and being caught being between a rock and a hard place concerning their work and family duties. Is this the case? Will the Tánaiste undertake a review of the system and change it significantly in two weeks’ time in the budget and in the new social welfare Bill?

Deputy Joan Burton: As I have said on a number of occasions, we want to ensure in the forthcoming budget that out of the additional moneys we will be able to spend between €1.2 billion and €1.5 billion. We want to focus in particular on families with children, retired people and those on long-term social welfare payments. The amount of money we have to spend is significant, although it is not as much as I would like. Obviously, we have not yet finalised decisions but that will be the focus of what we will do in the budget.

With the back-to-work family dividend, we are providing an additional support in that transition period when people are returning to work. That is to help them because when people first go back to work they may be in an entry-level employment.

As regards the number of hours, what the Deputy said is very interesting. We have been working with IBEC and other employers’ organisations to encourage the development and availability of employment at 19 hours, or above, per week. As the Deputy is probably aware, we have brought in the Low Pay Commission to recommend an increase in the minimum wage from the beginning of next year.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry but we are way over time with this question.

Deputy Joan Burton: In fact, therefore, we anticipate that people working on low incomes will receive a considerable boost both through a wage increase and the back-to-work family dividend. That will then set them up to be much better off than they would be by simply living entirely on social welfare.

Tags: One Family, One-Parent Family Payments, Social Protection, Women

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON SINN FÉIN’S SOCIAL HOUSING MOTION

30 Sep 2015
I warmly support the motion before the House and thank my Sinn Féin colleagues for giving me a chance to speak briefly on it. I would like to pay my respects to Alan Murphy, his family and friends. Last Friday, Alan died not very far from where we sit tonight. It is another tragic loss of life which can be put down completely to the failures of this Government and the Fianna Fáil Governments in their total abandonment of social housing programmes.

There are approximately 90,000 individuals on social housing waiting lists around the country. In July 2015, the figure on the Dublin City Council housing list stood at over 42,000 people, including almost 16,500 children, which equates to 21,592 applicants. In my constituency of Dublin Bay North, there is an astonishing 5,733 individuals and families urgently seeking houses in areas such as Artane, Coolock, Killester, Raheny, Darndale, Beaumont, Marino, Clontarf and Kilbarrack. Last week in this Chamber, I pleaded with my constituency colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, to start some sort of emergency housing programme but once again it seems that plea fell on deaf ears.

The other council I represent, Fingal County Council has 8,400 applicants urgently seeking housing in its catchment area. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has trumpeted the fact that he gave almost €20 million to Fingal County Council to build houses in the first phase of a programme to build 1,376 housing units. This is just a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the many families I represent who are waiting eight, nine, ten or, indeed, 11 years for housing.

There are over 150 individuals sleeping rough this very night while the Minister sits there talking to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coffey. In August of this year, the number of persons in emergency accommodation continued to rise. There are now 3,732 adults, including 1,496 children. I met the Ombudsman for Children a few months ago, in the late summer, to raise the concerns I have week in, week out when I meet homeless children, for whose rehousing the Minister is totally responsible.

The Minister spoke a few weeks ago about this crisis being a perfect storm. How did it happen? It is almost like an act of God. Somehow, in 2015 all of these factors came together to create this incredible situation that Deputy Ellis and my colleagues here have so eloquently outlined. A key element in this perfect storm is the Minister, who 15 months ago outlined to me steps he would take to try to address the situation. The Minister has not implemented one of those steps.

Colleagues referred to modular housing. I went to look at the exhibition of modular housing, as did Deputy Ellis. Some people would say it can provide a very tiny response to the crisis we are facing. However, I do not think so. That is not the way forward. Why would we spend €80,000 to €90,000 on building a modular house with materials that are not fit for our climate, with the forthcoming cold and damp winter, when we could build a house? The Minister could build a house and start direct action. He could declare a housing emergency. Why will he not declare a housing emergency and have a Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, Act on housing? Fine Gael will not permit him to do so. He is a prisoner and he will continue to be a prisoner for the next two or three months.

The only solution to this situation is a general election. Let us have a general election, in which this will be a key issue, and change this rotten Government. Let us get rid of it and have a new Government with Members from this side of the House, which will declare a housing emergency, immediately introduce rent controls and deal with the other issues. It can be done. There is no use in the Minister waving his hands. It is not a perfect storm. The Minister is the key actor and he has not done his stuff.

Tags: homelessness, housing crisis, social housing

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE NEED FOR INVESTING IN MALAHIDE ROAD RE-ALIGNMENT

25 Sep 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: As the Minister knows, master plans for the north fringe of the Dublin City Council area and the adjoining south fringe of the Fingal County Council area were first drafted around 15 years ago by the planning departments of the two councils and a new urban district of 10,000 to 15,000 people and ancillary commercial development was planned, providing for a future population of 40,000 plus. Unfortunately the crash of 2008 brought much of the development to a halt and the discovery of high pyrite levels in foundation infills and insulation and other construction problems have greatly delayed the much-needed completion of the core of the north fringe.

The spine of the new city region is a main street or boulevard running from Clare Hall-Burnell on Malahide Road, Dublin 17 across Belmayne, Priory Hall and Clongriffin to Clongriffin town centre, which is alongside the planned town centre in the coast development of Fingal’s south fringe. A number of key road improvements are a prerequisite for the development of this master plan for the north fringe-south fringe district. These include the Hole-in-the-Wall Road-Moyne Road improvement scheme now being addressed by Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council, the proposed Northern Parkway h2ly linking the Dublin city and Fingal parts of this region and finally, and most importantly, the Malahide Road re-alignment or bypass at Clare Hall-Burnell which is a joint project of Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council.

The Malahide Road re-alignment was a key roads improvement objective in the 2005-11 Dublin city development plan, which I helped design. Dublin City Council road design and construction engineers and the north central area management teams held widespread consultation on this project, especially with Fingal colleagues, and produced detailed plans for the proposed re-alignment. Traffic on the very busy Malahide Road was to be diverted to the west at Darndale Belcamp and over a new bridge and across the N32, now known as the R139, through Belcamp College lands and then moving back eastwards to re-join the Malahide Road near the Moyne Road junction. In the Dublin city development plan 2011 to 2017 at section 5.1.4.8 under “Road Capacity Improvements” the construction of the Malahide Road re-alignment is named as a key objective. The re-alignment’s importance is underlined in many reports since 2008 to the north central committee of Dublin City Council and to the North Fringe Forum, a residents’ and stakeholders’ group which meets quarterly to review progress on the north-south fringe.
At our recent north-fringe forum, which took place on Tuesday last, the north central area manager, Mr. Dave Dinnigan, highlighted efforts by Dublin City Council to encourage well planned development at a key site on the junction of the Malahide Road – R139 – and Clare Hall Avenue. This is the site of Clare Hall town centre and an earlier effort by the local authority to develop the centre was stymied by the withdrawal and collapse of Stanley builders. However, the critical public infrastructure necessary to create the environment of the new Clare Hall town centre is the urgent funding and construction of the Malahide Road bypass or realignment. The bypass will take the considerable north-south traffic out of the location and, with other measures to ease the east-west traffic flows, would permit a true urban retail and services centre to develop where the Tesco Clare Hall shopping centre and the Hilton hotel are the flagships of a commercial development at present.

The last detailed report we received from DCC engineers put a cost of €50 million on the project a couple of years ago, but as a key measure to enable the sustainable completion of the north fringe-south fringe region, capital expenditure on this realignment would be a valuable investment. Many thousands of new homes, services and businesses are needed in the region and, in addition to addressing our catastrophic housing crisis, this road investment would be a significant boost to the public infrastructure needed to complete the north-fringe urban region. I urge the Minister to ensure the National Transport Authority makes the project a priority for the 2016 capital programme.

I noted the Minister’s recent announcements. Incidentally, I hope his recent reconsideration of metro north is not merely a general election ploy and he is sincere about this. As the Acting Chairman, Deputy Farrell, will be aware, it would be devastating for the north side if the Minister, who himself is one of our region’s Deputies, dangles this carrot in front of us and then does not help to follow through on it. I hope that reconsideration is real. In the announcements, there are many important road improvements. I note the N11 New Ross bypass and the road connecting Sligo and Donegal – the north-west region – and I am a h2 supporter of all those. However, for our region, and I think the Acting Chairman would support this 100%, we should do the Malahide Road realignment.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this matter with me. As the Deputy would expect, I am familiar with the area to which he refers. There is a response that will be circulated to him but I will pick up on a few points in response.

Deputy Broughan will be aware of the overall position on road funding. From a height of almost €3 billion in 2008, this year the level of funding available to me for road construction or maintenance is €760 million, which is a decrease of almost two thirds. Alongside that, there is considerable pressure on the money I have available to fund a range of different projects. The Deputy referred to some of the national projects elsewhere for which there is a great need. He also touched on some of the speculation about metro north. I will not get into what the proposal will be because I must get Cabinet approval for it, but I assure the Deputy that whatever proposal goes forward with, I hope, Cabinet approval, it will be one we are confident we can make happen because I am aware of the number of times different plans have emerged, some of which have happened but many of which have not.

On the road project to which Deputy Broughan referred, the funding position of Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council and the other Dublin local authorities is that, in view of their implementation of the local property tax, each is now in a surplus position in terms of their overall finances and is in a position to self-fund services, including road expenditure. On the particular proposal Deputy Broughan made for the Malahide Road bypass near Clare Hall, to date my Department has not received a proposal from any of the local authorities for that road. That may be for different reasons in terms of examining the proposal or its cost, and the Deputy may well be aware of them, but I have not received a proposal for that road.
A capital plan will be published, I believe, next week. That will refer to some projects that will be progressed, but I anticipate that other projects could be deployed out of the funding that local authorities themselves will have available to them. At this time, neither I nor my Department has received a proposal for that road. Perhaps Deputy Broughan might be able to offer a perspective on that because I am aware, given that I know where he is referring to, that there is a need to look at the road infrastructure in that part of the north side of Dublin city.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: On that point, there were detailed plans in 2012 or early 2013. The Minister’s predecessor would have received some outline requests for support because it is a project that encompasses two local authorities and it needs that kind of background support.

I have advocated for many years for a strategic development zone in the north fringe – the south fringe from a Fingal perspective – which would be a massive new city region. If we had an SDZ in the region, which we should have and which is something the Minister could take to Government, we would have key infrastructure such as roads, schools and services going in as occupants moved in. We have had a terrible time with the north fringe and south fringe, and the Acting Chairman can back me up in every word I say, because of the pyrite problem, which was an horrendous imposition on young families, men and women who had struggled to save and were paying mortgages. We also had insulation problems and all types of other problems.
There is the example of other countries. For example, when the north fringe was first mooted, some city councillors may well have visited Stockholm. Stockholm, like Dublin, has four local authorities and in the northern part, where they were building a new north fringe, they tried to put all the integrated services in together. That certainly included roads. It included taking major traffic out of the new centre, a place called Hammarby Sjöstad in north Stockholm. They also examined other EU capitals where there was major town development, but the roads were part of creating a new urban district.
Obviously, there will be significant changes in south Fingal and the north part of Dublin city. In particular, the county manager envisages Swords becoming a major regional centre. It is the fifth or sixth largest city in the country already – the fifth or sixth anyway. It is a major regional city. We hope to have major services in terms of education, health and so forth encompassing the population back to Dublin Bay North, which is mostly in the city area. A key part of progressing this is to look seriously at this road project.

On a final point about metro north, when the former Rail Procurement Agency held substantial consultations in 2008, it had three corridors for the new metro north, or metro-heavy rail, one which would have gone through the western part of Dublin Bay North, coming up through Coolock from Drumcondra. Eventually, the RPA decided on the alignment that is being discussed in press statements and elsewhere in the context of the Minister’s reconsideration of the project. People felt the north-west had to be brought into this and the result was the western part of Dublin Bay North was left out of the equation. We are fortunate to have the DART in Malahide and Portmarnock on the eastern side of our region. Therefore, we need some major public transport capital infrastructure as well. On the last point, I want to bring the Malahide Road to the Minister’s attention. I do not know what will happen when we have the general election in a few weeks or months’ time and who will be sitting behind the Minister’s desk. If Deputy Donohoe is still there, in whatever circumstances, I hope he might remember the Malahide Road realignment and help our engineers in both counties to bring it to pass.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I heard the two different points the Deputy made. My priority is to find a way to significantly improve public transport access on the north side of our city in a way that will benefit many of the communities to which the Deputy referred. This means there are other initiatives that I, or any future transport Minister, will not be able to do for some time, given that it will require investment to put in place new public transport access for the north side of Dublin.

Regarding the Malahide Road, my Department has not received a proposal on it, although some costings or work may have been done a number of years ago. I will soon meet the two local authorities regarding other transport matters and I will raise it with them and see where the matter stands. I know that part of the city well and, while there is a need to improve our public transport access overall, I am familiar with the quality of some of the roads to which the Deputy referred. I thank the Deputy for raising the issue.

Tags: Clongriffin, Malahide, North Fringe, transport

 

DÁIL SPEECH QUESTIONING THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH ON THE FAIR DEAL SCHEME

9 Jul 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Health the current status of the fair deal scheme; how advanced planning is for dealing with the seasonal upsurge during the winter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27370/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am aware that total funding for the fair deal scheme is almost €1 billion and that there was an increase earlier this year. How many of the promised 1,600 places have been delivered? Also, how many of the 300 places promised earlier have been delivered? In general, how prepared are we for the forthcoming winter? Last November, 2,000 people were waiting for a nursing home place. What preparations are being made to avoid that happening this winter?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: The nursing homes support scheme, the fair deal scheme, is a system of financial support for those in need of long-term nursing home care. Participants contribute according to their means while the State pays the balance of the cost.
In 2015, the scheme has an allocation of €993 million. In budget 2015, additional funding of €25 million was provided to support services that provide alternatives to, and relieve pressures on, acute hospitals. Of this €25 million, some €10 million was used to provide an additional 300 places under the fair deal scheme. This reduced the waiting time for approved applicants from 17 weeks to four weeks. Some €8 million was used to provide access to an additional 115 short-stay beds across the Dublin area, €5 million was used to provide 400 additional home care packages which will benefit 600 people in the course of the year, and €2 million was used to expand the community intervention team services in primary care across Dublin and the surrounding region.

In April 2015, the Government provided a further €74 million to address issues that impact on delayed discharges. This amount was in addition to €25 million provided earlier and was allocated as follows. Some €44 million was allocated to the nursing homes support scheme to provide an additional 1,600 places and to further reduce waiting times for approved applicants from 11 to four weeks. This funding will allow the HSE to increase the rate of approvals during periods of increased demand, including any surge during the winter months so as to maintain the waiting time for approved applicants at no more than four weeks. In the coming months, the number of people supported under the scheme will increase on an ongoing basis. The scheme will be supporting in excess of 23,900 people by the end of 2015. The remaining €30 million was principally applied to provide additional transitional beds, some of which were on a temporary basis to address the particular pressures then being experienced by acute hospitals.

When the nursing homes support scheme commenced, a commitment was made that it would be reviewed after three years. This review is considering the scheme’s long-term viability as well as looking at how well the current model of provision is balancing residential care with care in the community, and whether this needs to be adjusted to better reflect what older people want and need. The review of the scheme is almost completed and is expected to be published shortly.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: On the review, is the Minister aware that recommendations have been reported in the media? Are those accurate? When does he expect to be able to publish the recommendations and what might he expect to be in them? There are indications that additional finance will be required from clients of the scheme.

More generally, the Minister spoke a few weeks ago about unmet needs in the health service and indicated that up to €1 billion in additional funding might be required this year. I asked the Taoiseach about this the other day and he seemed to indicate that there might be a supplementary budget before the end of the year for 2015. Will that include the Fair Deal scheme? The Minister is aware of the work of ALONE and the Home First campaign, which indicates very clearly that many more seniors would do well at home if the Minister were able to put more money into home supports and home care packages. There is a long waiting list for that.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: There are a number of questions there. The Fair Deal review is done and I expect it to be published in the next few weeks. It does not so much make recommendations as suggest different things that could be done to make the scheme more sustainable in the years to come. It then makes recommendations about alternative ways of funding home care in a better way. There are lots of other things like that and it is quite an interesting report. The report also addresses some of the unfairness that may exist, particularly for self-employed people and farmers, in the way people are assessed for the Fair Deal scheme, and makes recommendations in that regard.

On the ALONE campaign, it is absolutely our preference that people stay at home for as long as possible. By and large, it is also less expensive to provide a home care package than to provide a Fair Deal place. The proportion of people aged over 65 going in to nursing homes is actually falling, notwithstanding that the raw numbers are increasing. That is illustrative of the fact that better home care is now available.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: There is still a significant waiting list for home care packages. The waiting time for the Fair Deal scheme has decreased significantly, to four or five weeks, but what does the Minister intend to do about the waiting time for home care packages themselves? Does that form part of the amount the Minister was thinking of in terms of unmet needs?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: An additional €5 million was provided this year to provide an additional 400 home care packages to the benefit of 600 people. The waiting time for a package varies from region to region quite significantly, which is a real difficulty. The HSE has been given flexibility to spend more on home care packages where it is running into trouble in staffing units. Where the HSE cannot get nursing staff to open a community unit, it can divert funding to additional home care packages. That is actually being done.

Tags: Fair Deal Scheme, Nursing Homes

 

DÁIL SPEECH QUESTIONING THE MINISTER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

8 Jul 2015
7. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the preparations he is making for the upcoming review with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27090/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, submitted the third and fourth reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. If the Government survives, I understand the Minister will represent us in January at an examination of those reports. Some of the subjects he will obviously deal with will be child poverty, which he just discussed, child protection, services for children, education, health, disability services and so on. I hope that among the issues he will cover will be the impact of homelessness on our children.

Deputy James Reilly: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the Committee on the Rights of the Child, comprising independent experts, as the monitoring body for holding state parties to account regarding compliance with the convention. That process involves states submitting periodic reports to the committee and appearing before it for the purposes of discussing the report submitted.

Ireland’s most recent attendance before the committee was in 2006 and its most recent consolidated third and fourth report was submitted to the committee in July 2013. Ireland is scheduled to appear before the committee again in January 2016. While the actual meeting date has yet to be notified, it will occur between 11 and 29 January.

Before meeting individual state parties, the committee receives reports from, and meets, civil society interests and national rights monitoring bodies. These contacts inform the identification of issues the committee intends to discuss with the state party concerned. In Ireland’s case the committee met such interested parties, including a meeting with young people as facilitated by the Children’s Rights Alliance, last month.

To my Department’s knowledge, the committee also received three parallel reports, from the Children’s Rights Alliance, from young people with the support of the alliance and from the Ombudsman for Children. The information gained from these sources has culminated in the recent receipt of a list of issues from the committee, regarding the combined third and fourth report of Ireland, to which the committee is seeking a written response by 15 October 2015. The committee has made clear that the list of issues is not intended to be exhaustive and it should not be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing the type and range of questions which members of the committee might wish to pose in January.

Given the breadth of the UN Convention, the committee’s scope of interest is very extensive and essentially covers the responsibilities and activities of most, if not all, Departments and many State agencies. Consequently, engagement with the committee involves a very considerable exercise of cross-government liaison and consultation around issues that are relevant to particular Departments or to a number of Departments. The co-ordination work is the responsibility of my Department. In that regard, it has established liaison arrangements with all Departments to process issues identified in the run-up to meeting the committee on which input from the individual Departments would be required. The current position is that my Department is preparing to communicate shortly with other Departments on the contents of the list of issues recently received from the committee.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade liaises closely with my Department to facilitate communications to and from the committee.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Will the list of issues include the impact of homelessness on children, the children of those families – almost 3,500 – who are homeless in this city and county as well as other urban areas around the country? On 28 June, 1,122 children were in emergency accommodation. I represent dozens of families in that situation, as would the Minister and other Deputies present today. We know from meeting the children of homeless families that they are often very insecure and sometimes distressed. They are unable to get easily to school, to recreation and to other basic facilities. As the Minister will be aware from his constituency, living in hotels and guesthouses often makes it very difficult to have an ordinary child’s life.

The Minister mentioned the parallel reports. Two of the organisations, including the Children’s Rights Alliance, are focusing on the impact of homelessness on children. Along with some of my staff, I recently met Dr. Niall Muldoon, the Ombudsman for Children, to discuss the impact of homelessness on children. His report states, “The State must address delays in the provision of social housing and ensure that emergency housing support provided to families who are experiencing homelessness is appropriate to children’s needs.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister has said he was working with other Departments. Is he meeting the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly? Is he bringing bring to his attention the very real distress and suffering of our children in this city this very minute regarding homelessness?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: What has the Minister done in this regard? He has said—–

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will come back to the Deputy.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: —–that he is the Minister for all our children. What is he doing right now to protect our homeless children?

Deputy James Reilly: The issue of homelessness has been on the Government agenda for quite some time. I am a member of the Cabinet committee on social policy. As Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I am very concerned about the impact of homelessness on children. I am very concerned about the provision of accommodation and that emergency accommodation should reflect, in so far as it can, normality for those families. I accept that many times they do not if there are no cooking facilities, etc.

Equally, I am concerned, as I am sure the Deputy is, about other child protection issues forcing large numbers of people into less than ideal accommodation at times on an emergency basis. While it is necessary to avail of bed and breakfast and other accommodation of that nature on an emergency basis, they do not represent a long-term solution. There have been numerous meetings involving the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and me to address this issue at the Cabinet committee on social policy.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: In this region, has the Minister met the city manager, Mr. Owen Keegan, the Fingal county manager, Mr. Paul Reid? Has he or his officials met Mr. Dick Brady or members of the Dublin Region Homeless Executive? Does he have any plans to inspect the conditions in which these homeless families are forced to live for nine or ten months and in some cases more than a year?

Has the Minister spoken to the children on the issue? He mentioned that in the preparation of the report to the UN committee he had a parallel report into which children gave input. Has he spoken to them, even outside the type of information clinic or whatever situation he might meet these children? Has he actually looked at the accommodation and brought it to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and the Taoiseach?

The situation we have now, in which the number of homeless children has doubled in eight or nine months, cannot go on. We need it to end. First and foremost, we need to stop children from being made homeless.

Deputy James Reilly: I have met all the individuals the Deputy mentioned on more than one occasion. The Government’s homeless policy statement was published on 21 February 2013 and makes explicit the Government’s commitment to a housing-led approach to end long-term involuntary homelessness by the end of 2016. Significant measures are being taken, under the Dublin region homeless pilot scheme, including the homeless assistance payment, the Department of Social Protection’s tenancy sustainment protocol and the purchase of NAMA properties. There are also a range of other measures relating to the allocation of local authority tenancies. Under these measures, key local authorities are required to prioritise homeless and other vulnerable households in the allocation of tenancies under their control. The four Dublin local authorities have been directed to allocate 50% of available dwellings to this cohort, while the local authorities in Counties Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford have been directed to allocate 30%. It is expected that as a result of this initiative at least 500 homes will be provided to prioritised households in the Dublin region, with a similar total for the other areas combined. These measures were identified in the Government’s implementation plan on the State’s response to homelessness in May 2014 and the action plan to address homelessness last December.

Tags: children, homelessness, United Nations

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE CIVIL DEBT (PROCEDURES) BILL 2015

3 Jul 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015. I welcome the provision to abolish imprisonment for non-payment of fines, which has been a particularly problematic issue for the Prison Service in the case of smaller fines. The legislation repeals sections of the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1872 on imprisonment for non-payment. When the Law Reform Commission reported in 2010, attachment of earnings orders were primarily used to enforce maintenance orders in family law cases. Since then, however, they have been sanctioned for other matters a number of times in legislation, including in the Finance Act 2012 for local property tax, in the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014, which has not yet been commenced, for unpaid fines, and in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013 for social welfare overpayments. This legislation is, if one likes, part of the panorama of austerity the Government has inflicted on citizens.

I note the Government has not adopted the Law Reform Commission’s recommendation that an employer who dismisses an employee or acts prejudicially towards him or her based on an attachment of orders should be guilty of an offence. I ask the Government to urgently address this absence from the Bill.

The Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which is always very helpful to Deputies in providing research on complex legal issues, has produced a digest on the Bill which outlines the longstanding legal mechanisms in place to enforce judgment debts and the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in this regard. The commission invokes Article 1 of the fourth protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that “No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.” The amendment of the Debtors (Ireland) Act 1872 removing references to the imprisonment of debtors for non-payment of debt in section 26 is, therefore, a progressive development. However, a debtor may be still imprisoned under the court enforcement measures provided for in the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 2009.

The clear linkage of much of the Bill – at least as far as section 26 – to the campaign to impose water taxes on an unwilling population is deplorable and obscures the other serious impacts the legislation may have on hard-pressed, low-income citizens and families. I have repeatedly asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, and his predecessor in that portfolio, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, to address the issue of energy poverty and the spiralling costs of gas and electricity for low-income families. The payment of bills for these vital services and a wide range of other household necessities will come within the ambit of this Bill. Will the current arrangements to assist poor households in accessing these services be replaced by recourse to this legislation by service providers? This is one of the key concerns about the wider implications of this Bill.

As I indicated, I welcome the provisions in respect of the 1872 Act. However, the attachment of a debtor’s earnings and deductions from his or her social welfare payments open up a new vista of pressure on the poorest citizens in society. The overall context of this Bill is a further turning of the screw of austerity on the poorest citizens. This is the reason I oppose the Bill and will vote against it next week. I also categorically oppose the deplorable manner in which the Government has conducted itself in attempting to force people to pay for its farcical quango, Irish Water, which is the real purpose of the Bill.

The report by the Law Reform Commission was published in 2010, one year before the current conservative Government came to power. It is only now that 500,000 households or 45% of all households with a mains water supply have refused to even register for the water tax that the Government is acting on this so-called reform measure. This is the only reason we are seeing movement on the suite of options the Law Reform Commission proposed. The nub of the Bill is to bully people into paying twice for a service from Irish Water and dress it up as a modernising initiative. In that regard, the Bill is dishonest and misleading.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, and his Fine Gael-Labour Party colleagues are targeting almost half of all households on the spurious grounds that all those who do not pay the water tax are “will not pay” citizens and these households will be forced to pay water taxes. Surely there are many hundreds of thousands of these households for which the water taxes are the straw that broke the camel’s back. People simply do not have the resources to pay these taxes and they will not do so.

Throughout the Bill there are seemingly reasonable but which are in reality useless safeguards to protect debtors on the minimum wage, very low incomes or social welfare benefits and allowances. Thus the amount of a liquidated sum in section 6 is set at between €500 and €4,000, while section 7 lays out detailed guidelines for a judgment on debtors’ earnings and a statement of means, including social welfare benefits but excluding child benefit. The Minister in her speech which I read carefully spoke at length about how fair the statement of means could be for people under pressure to pay debts of this kind.

Under section 9 a court may not make a concurrent attachment of earnings order and a deduction from payments order, while section 10(4)(b) lays down that compliance with the order will leave a sufficient amount to “the judgment debtor to maintain himself or herself and anyone dependant [sic] on him or her”. That is a problematic part of the Bill. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, knows from his work with our constituents that people are often trying desperately to survive, not even from week to week but from day to day. We deal with people who are under massive pressure in the private rental sector who do not put food on the table in order to keep a roof over their heads. Perhaps 200 families in our constituency are homeless this very day.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is given a key role in determining the employer of judgment debtors in the service of the State, including us. The Minister for Social Protection has a similar key role under sections 16 to 19, inclusive, for judgment debtors who have been beneficiaries of net scheme payments. The Government should have studied net scheme payments in greater detail. I read in some of the interesting research compiled for us that the Minister of State’s colleague, Deputy Fergus O’Dowd, from County Louth had said an attachment order against social welfare payment could only be for €2 a week because the net payment was the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, limit. We find from experience that people pay more than this. How does this square with the lofty ideals in some sections of the Bill? The deductions from social welfare payments must have regard to the particular circumstances of the judgment debtor and leave a sufficient amount to him or her “to maintain himself or herself and anyone dependant [sic] on him or her”. That does not happen. That is one of the problems with this legislation which is part of the panorama of austerity.

The same weasel words are repeated in section 20 where the variation of a relevant order “will not leave a sufficient amount to him or her to maintain himself or herself and anyone dependant [sic] on him or her”. When the Minister of State reports to his colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, he might ask for clarification about the SWA limit which is, I think, €186 per week. I say this in respect of the real lives of the people we see in tears every weekend and when we walk around our constituency who are desperately trying to exist from day to day.

The events of this week in Dáil Éireann have marked another disgraceful milestone in the demise of the Labour Party. The savage cuts imposed on one-parent families this week by the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton; the imposition of the guillotine in the debate on the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 under the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, and this Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 represent an assault on the poorest sections of Irish society and the total abandonment of the century-old egalitarian economic ideals of the founders of the Irish Labour Party. I look around at some of the senior Labour Party Deputies, people to whom, sadly, I sometimes refer as extinct volcanoes. In times past, in recent decades, some of these colleagues who still take the Labour Party Whip would have fulminated and savagely, remorselessly condemned this Bill, the disgraceful Bill that was before the House yesterday and what happened to lone parents on Thursday. They would have said that was directly opposed to the part of the political spectrum for which any workers’ party should stand. They have not done this. They have gone, gently, quietly, into the good night of oblivion which will happen to them, sadly, in the coming general election, instead of condemning these measures, as they should have done, before the Rabbitte-Gilmore leadership eviscerated and destroyed the heart and mission of the Labour Party as those gentlemen and their colleagues tried so hard and so desperately and in a hand to hand way to do but signally failed to do before 1999. Deputy Eamon Gilmore had the effrontery to stand up in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago and talk about the political cost to himself of his appalling betrayal of the independent Labour Party programme developed until 1999 by generations of the Labour Party. Nowhere did he recognise the intense suffering and the real economic and social cost visited on citizens by his cowardly surrender to the vicious Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael austerity project from 2009. It is a project that, unfortunately, the Minister of State has also embraced.

Like the so-called environment legislation debated in the past few days, this Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 is another sleveen and sinister law designed to intimidate the huge portion of the nation which remains steadfastly opposed to water taxes. We are in a clear majority. We know this from walking the streets and attending meetings in our constituency, organised by valiant groups such as Clarehall Says No and it does say no to this imposition, as do Marino, Donnycarney, Clontarf, Raheny, Coolock and Howth. It is the straw that broke the camel’s back. As the Acting Chairman, Deputy Derek Keating, knows, being a Dublin Deputy, the levels of property tax we pay are so immense that this issue was the final straw for many. Those citizens have continued their courageous, stubborn resistance to the additional imposition of water taxes on top of property tax and all the earlier cuts and tax impositions.

This legislation may prove a hopeless and useless device to cow and intimidate the millions of people who, like me, have steadfastly refused to register for this new poll tax. I asked the Taoiseach two years ago to hold a general election as a referendum on this issue, as our Greek colleagues are doing. I asked him to put it to the people to see what they would say. It will be put to them in the next six or seven months at the earliest, whenever Fine Gael decides to pull the plug on the Labour Party. That referendum will effectively be held. It should have been held two years ago as we should have given the people an input into the troika austerity measures. When the Government was unable to get the deal that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, said he had got in 2012, the deal that was somehow on the table and then disappeared off it, we coat-tailed on our valiant Greek colleagues and received a much lower interest rate on our remaining debt, we should have put a referendum to the people on how to move forward. I know that the Acting Chairman is a student of economics and notice the Department of Finance has presented us with figures which show clearly that this year and every year between 2016 and 2020 we will pay €8 billion in interest if we are lucky, if there is no increase in interest rates on the stupendous debt we have gained by bailing out the bankers. It amounts to €2,500 a year for every man, woman and child in the State. The total is €42 billion, the size of an Irish budget for a whole year, or the education budget for every year. That is what we must send to the banksters in order to rescue the German and French banks. That is what the Government has left us with. In that context, it brings forward miserable legislation to inflict further pain and restriction on the poorest people in the country.

Looking through the Bill, I agree with Deputy Clare Daly and wonder how sections such as section 5, the service of documents for an attachment of earnings order, will work in practice. It refers to “leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides” or “sending it by post to the address at which the person ordinarily resides” and so on. I am very familiar with some of the issues that have arisen in respect of traffic offences and the difficulty in trying to make contact with people who are liable for penalty points. The existing long-standing legislation on personal debt refers to registered letters and letters of credit and bills going through the courts. This is a highly specialised legal area.

This seems totally farcical in terms of the main purpose of this Bill. It also says that the service of notice of the attachment order to the employer may be effected by leaving the order or a copy of it at the employer’s residence or place of business in the State. To whom will that be addressed? What level of management will be involved? What provisions will be made for small and medium-sized business owners? The Minister of State spoke recently about bringing in non-discriminatory legislation relating to tenants. He has been talking about it for the past six months but we still have not seen anything. How will he protect employees on whom an attachment order is served if their employers are browned off with it and might victimise them? The Bill is gravely deficient in this regard. There are data protection and privacy serious issues relating to sharing information with a person’s employer or the Department of Social Protection. What consideration was given to those issues in this Bill? I believe none was given.

It is set out extensively in section 7 that it will be an offence not to furnish the court with the necessary statement of means. Section 11 concerns the court’s responsibility in respect of attachment orders on the person in question and the person’s employer. I am very familiar with our overworked and under-resourced Courts Service in respect of traffic offences. How can attachment orders be made for 500,000 households through the Courts Service? It clearly will not happen and is something that, one hopes, the general election will resolve.

Like the Minister of State, every week, I meet and represent Irish citizens struggling to make ends meet after years of austerity and cuts. Many of these people are single mothers and often go without food to feed their children. The latest EU-SILC survey from 2013 showed us that 12% of our children live in consistent poverty, which is double the number since 2008 when the figure stood at 6%. According to Barnardos, a leading children’s advocacy group and charity, this figure equates to almost one in eight children. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government likes to talk about his legacy. Here is a legacy – one child in eight living in extreme poverty. The Government is bringing in a Bill to turn the screws on them even further. Like other Labour Deputies, the Minister of State has the choice not to do this.

Barnardos says:
Consistent poverty means that these children are living in households with incomes below 60% of the national median income and experiencing deprivation based on the agreed 11 deprivation indicators. This can mean going 24 hours without a substantial meal or being cold because parents are unable to afford to heat the home.

Barnardos says that nearly two-thirds of lone parents with one or more children experience deprivation. This was a very sad week in the history of the State in respect of its treatment of lone parents. It is particularly sad for people who come from the labour movement because it was Labour Party Ministers who first brought forward a benefit for lone parents and secondary benefits. The Tánaiste’s new changes to the one-parent family payment are pushing more and more single parents deeper into poverty. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government’s lack of action on the housing crisis means that more than 1,000 children will be living in hotel rooms tonight. This Bill, which is being rushed through along with the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, will punish people on low incomes and social welfare payments for not paying their water bills.

It is very sad. It is unworkable legislation. The Law Reform Commission in 2010 sought to reform this area. The section relating to the repeal of the 1872 Act is a valuable step forward but everyone knows the purpose of the rest of the Bill. This will fail. We will have the full discussion on all these matters relating to the entire austerity programme of the Government over the next number of months. I believe that in the next general election, as we have seen in other countries such as Greece and Scotland, people will have to make a choice about austerity. Are they with the parties of austerity – the Fine Gael-Labour coalition and Fianna Fáil – or they with people who have opposed austerity from day one? That is the choice when the election comes. I believe the majority of the people will choose to move away from austerity and this Bill will be changed drastically in the next Dáil.

Tags: austerity, Civil Debts, Greece, Irish Water

DÁIL SPEECH QUESTIONING MINISTER COVENEY ON BSE CASE IN CO LOUTH

1 Jul 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, case; the investigative measures his Department is taking to ensure this was an isolated case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25843/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The BSE case in County Louth is a very significant event in Irish agriculture. I have been looking quickly at the epidemiological investigation report on the Department’s website and it appears to conclude that this is a classical BSE case and, it is hoped, a one-off event. However, the report seems very vague overall. Obviously, the feed from the era in question, 2009 to 2010, has been investigated thoroughly and does not seem to be the root of the problem. Given the impact on our food reputation internationally and what the Minister has been trying to do over recent years, is it concerning that we have not identified the precise cause of this outbreak?

Deputy Simon Coveney: Before I reply to the question, I thank colleagues for taking a very responsible approach to a very sensitive issue last week. We were anxious to get very detailed results, which we did. This has provided a great deal of reassurance to the beef industry and farming and, most important, to people who buy Irish beef. They can be sure this is an industry that is properly regulated, safe and which has dealt with an outlier or single and individual case of BSE in a very transparent and competent manner.

Final test results have confirmed the recent suspect case of BSE to be an isolated case of classical BSE in a single animal. In line with normal protocols, my Department identified all animals potentially exposed to the BSE agent that caused this incident, those born and reared on the birth farm one year either side of the birth date of the positive animal and, indeed, her progeny. These have been slaughtered, excluded from the food and feed chains and tested. The epidemiological investigation has confirmed the following. All 63 cohort animals and four progeny slaughtered and disposed of have tested negative for BSE. The confirmed case is an isolated case in a single animal. Both the dam and grand dam of the infected animal tested negative for BSE at slaughter and, therefore, vertical transmission is not considered to be a factor in this case. While the grand dam of the positive animal was imported, this is not of any significance in epidemiological terms. No concerns arise regarding the integrity of the commercial feed supply chain or the effectiveness of the feed control systems.

We looked at thousands of test results from the years when this animal was growing up and not a single one tested positive for meat and bonemeal, which was connected in the past to BSE. We have had a meat and bonemeal ban in animal feed since 2001. All of the indications, surveys and test results show the ban has been rigorously enforced and adhered to by the feed industry in Ireland. Last year there were ten isolated one-off single animal cases of BSE throughout the European Union. Unfortunately we have had one this year, but we have dealt with it in a very comprehensive way. We have shown the systems in Ireland deal with these isolated incidences if and when they happen. The industry itself continues to deal in a very comprehensive way with the historic problem of BSE.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister made the point very h2ly about feedstuffs but could there have been cross-contamination in 2009 or 2010? Was this ruled out? The farm in question is reported to be an exemplary producer. The report makes clear this is the second time this farm was depopulated as it also occurred approximately a decade ago. Is this of concern to the Minister? He mentioned the grand dam was imported in this case. Is this a matter of concern? The European Union and the OIE must be informed. Will this lead to a downgrading of our status from negligible risk to controlled risk? Is this a significant event with regard to the efforts made on beef exports to the United States and China? What further controls is the Minister considering to ensure this does not reoccur?

Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy asked many questions so I will try to move through them as quickly as I can. The markets are very calm with regard to this incident. People, governments and veterinary departments which understand BSE and its history understand these isolated one-off cases can happen. The important thing is how they are dealt with, and a number of people outside of Ireland have complimented me and the Department. Catching this animal and dealing with it in a transparent and open way is proof the Irish system is working.

We have not received negative feedback from the countries with which we trade. Of course we have provided information and reassurance to all of them and it seems to be working very well. Beef prices have increased since the incident happened. They are not increasing because it happened but they certainly have not decreased and the demand for Irish beef has not reduced. This is an indication people trust our systems. I believe Irish beef is the safest in the world, and this is the case now as it was a month ago.

On the OIE question, of course we have shared all of our results with European Commission and the OIE. Unfortunately we may well get reclassified. Three weeks ago we were upgraded to negligible risk status, which means no issue at all with BSE, from controlled risk status, which means our controls make us safe. However, controls are necessary. We may well now have to revert back to controlled risk, but this is a matter for the OIE and we will have to wait to see what happens.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I also asked the Minister about the fact that farm was depopulated in the past and about cross-contamination.

Deputy Simon Coveney: The farm had a previous incident of BSE in 2002 and unfortunately we have had this one-off incident on the farm again. The honest answer is we cannot pinpoint exactly what caused this, because in all likelihood it was something the animal ingested six or perhaps five years ago. We are sharing our results with other countries in Europe which have had one-off cases in recent years to try to gain a better scientific understanding about how these one-off cases happen. There are different theories on it. With regard to all we could have practically done in testing, we tested current feed on the farm and our inspectors looked at the farm in great detail with regard to feed storage facilities looking for any clues or hints as to how this might have happened. With regard to how it is run, the farm’s cleanliness and organisation is exemplary. It is a really well run farm so it is unfortunate this incident has happened. We will do what we can with other countries to draw further conclusions but the conclusions we have drawn on the basis of the testing we have done are very reassuring to date.

Tags: Agriculture, Beef, BSE

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON FUNDING FOR ST. MICHAEL’S HOUSE

26 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: St. Michael’s House is an outstanding organisation that since 1955 has been providing vital services for citizens with intellectual disabilities and their families. These services include clinical and counselling services, educational and vocational services, employment services, residential and respite care services, specialist Alzheimer’s disease services for people with intellectual disabilities, and social, sports and recreational services. St. Michael’s House is the largest and possibly most well known provider of intellectual disability services in Dublin and the third largest provider nationally. Elsewhere in Dublin Trojan work is being done by the St. John of God organisation on the west and south sides, with the services it provides complementing the work of St. Michael’s House on the north side.

St. Michael’s House provides services for more than 1,600 children and adults with intellectual disabilities in 170 day and residential services in the Dublin and Leinster area. Every summer since the Government came to office, I have had to draw attention to the lack of resources for this organisation, particularly in respect of its efforts to assist young people who are completing their secondary school education and do not have placements for the coming autumn. There is also a major issue in regard to the cost of providing respite care services for families.

Funding for services for citizens with intellectual disabilities continues to be inadequate and is doled out on an ad hoc and unplanned basis. I take the opportunity to wish the new chief executive officer of St. Michael’s House, Ms Anna Shakespeare, the very best as she embarks on that challenging role. She follows in the wake of Ms Patricia Doherty who did tremendous work in that role for many years. Ms Shakespeare will have a very difficult job in leading a charity that has seen a €12.3 million cut in its funding since 2008. At the same time, of course, there has been no decrease in demand for the vital services it provides. Waiting lists are only getting longer and there is the requirement to address changing needs as people with disabilities get older and older parents pass away. The Government often talks about inclusion and equality in education and training, but the cuts it has imposed have forced the closure of a number of school leaver programmes and respite care services.

Like other north side Deputies, I received a number of heartfelt letters last February and March from parents of children with intellectual disabilities who were finishing second level education this year and had no placement to go to, either for training or work in a sheltered setting. Several parents told me that transition passports had been prepared but there was nowhere for their children to transition to. A key complaint often raised by parents and providers is that we do not have multi-annual or guaranteed funding for new school leavers. St. Michael’s House has contacted parents to explain that capital budgets are not available and houses are full but an effort is being made to source new buildings across the north side. There is no guarantee, however, if such premises become available, that the organisation will be able to commission them in time to provide placements for the autumn.

The same problem has arisen, as I said, every spring and summer in recent years. A number of people with intellectual disabilities who avail of the services at the St. Michael’s House centre on the Malahide Road wrote to me last week outlining their situation:
We are worried that our quality of life has been greatly affected by the cutbacks to our personal income and to funding of the services for people with a disability. We feel alienated and unable to participate in life equally with the rest of society.
The cutbacks imposed on these most vulnerable citizens must be reversed and we must provide sufficient numbers of secure emergency places in residential and respite care services.

Another feature of the cutbacks has been their impact on the valiant staff in intellectual disability services who are dealing with increasing numbers of clients. They are coming under terrible pressure as older parents pass away and adults in their 30s and 40s come into residential placements in an overcrowded setting. There is a huge task to be undertaken.
Deputy Ann Phelan: I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue which I am taking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State at Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who has done a great deal of commendable work in this area and is making progress in achieving her objectives. I am pleased to outline the position on services for adults with intellectual disabilities at St Michael’s House, including those who need continuing supports from the health service on leaving school and those who avail of respite care services.
In 2014 St. Michael’s House received HSE funding of more than €69 million to provide a range of community-based day, respite care and residential services for over 1,600 children and adults with an intellectual disability in some 170 centres in Dublin and County Meath. Additional funding of €12 million was announced in the HSE’s service plan for 2015 to meet the full-year costs of providing for school leavers and those graduating from rehabilitative training programmes. Of this funding, €6 million is available in 2015 and being allocated to community health care organisation areas, in line with needs identified and according to the HSE’s New Directions policy on day services for adults with a disability.
The HSE has confirmed that all young people and their families will be notified by the end of June of the placement that will be available to them from September. It is very aware of the challenges faced by some service providers and has been engaging locally and nationally with all providers, including St. Michael’s House, which may not have the physical capacity within their existing services to accommodate the new intake of school leavers in 2015. In this context, €1.5 million in once-off capital funding is to be allocated by the HSE to organisations to provide suitable buildings, premises and accommodation. Applications have been invited from all service providers to avail of this funding and I understand St Michael’s House has submitted estimates in this regard. These estimates will be forwarded to the national director for social care for consideration with other applications nationally. Capital allocations will be notified to providers by the end of June.
The HSE has informed the Department of Health that while there has been a reduction in residential overnight respite care capacity at St Michael’s House, provision has been made for alternative respite care services such as break-aways and host family respite care to address the demand for residential respite care services.
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister of State for her reply. I hope her colleague with responsibility in this area will deliver on the undertakings she outlined, to which she also referred in the replies to a number of parliamentary questions I had submitted to the Department of Health. On additional funding for places, what submission has the Department made to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in advance of the forthcoming capital budget statement? The Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, told me yesterday he had extensive discussions with all Departments on his proposals. I hope the Department of Health has had an input into that process for the funding of intellectual disability services in the second half of this year and 2016. Since budget 2008, there have been cumulative cuts to the allocation for St. Michael’s House of some €12.3 million, with the global budget for disability services likewise being significantly reduced.
The Minister of State referred to break-away and respite care services.
What commitment can the Minister of State give in that regard? Parents and siblings tell me that all available beds in different centres in north County Dublin and County Louth that used to serve as respite for people from the north side have been necessarily utilised for people in full-time residential care. What commitment can she give that there will be full-scale respite for these citizens?
I know we are heading towards a general election but this issue has had to be raised every single year. There is no multi-annual approach to this. Will the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, approach this when he comes into the Chamber in the forthcoming weeks to give the House a capital statement? Service providers across the country are coming under increasing pressure. They need more resources and one-to-one staffing.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, sent me the mapping exercise of the social care division operational plan which was to review the need for day-to-day services. It is essential it is carried out up to 2017 and 2018. Budget 2016 is not far away and there needs to be funding not just on the capital side but the current side to provide for additional staffing. We need to restore staffing levels in this sector. These are our most vulnerable citizens. We owe them a total commitment of care and support. I hope the Minister of State brings that message back to the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and the Cabinet.
Deputy Ann Phelan: The Deputy has answered some of his own questions and has acknowledged that extensive discussions are taking place on this issue.
The Health Service Executive has confirmed that all young people and their families will be notified by the end of June of the placement that will be available to them from September. While I accept this is a concerning time for all involved, I hope the Deputy can wait until the end of June to see the outcome of this. The HSE is providing alternative respite services such as breakaway and host family respite to address the demand for residential respite. Progress has been made in the area and I implore the Deputy to wait until the end of June. I will convey his concerns to the Minster of State who strives hard to deliver in th

Tags: Health Services, Intellectual Disabilities, St. Michael’s House

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE (LOW PAY COMMISSION) BILL 2015

25 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, which I h2ly support. I know the Low Pay Commission has been operational since February of this year, and I understand that the first report will be due in the very near future.

I welcome the legislation, which provides the constitutional and legislative bulwark for the national minimum wage, and amends the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. It remains to be seen how it will protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of low paid workers in coming years and decades. Nearly 5% of all our workers, just over 73,000, are earning the national minimum wage of €8.65. This is, of course, the experienced adult rate; those who are starting out in employment or are in structured training are on reduced rates of about 70% to 90% of the national minimum wage. The lower paid workers in our economy are typically those in the restaurant and hospitality sectors; those working as carers, particularly carers for seniors; cleaners; security workers; retail workers; and of course younger people. Many of us in this House had experience of those professions when we were starting out in our careers or studying.

There is also a distinct gender bias, as Deputy Maloney said. It has been noted by the National Women’s Council of Ireland that this is a gender issue, as 60% of workers on low pay are women. We know that 50% of women in Ireland are earning less than €20,000. Women, younger people, migrants and those working in lower-skilled jobs such as trainees and apprentices in areas such as hairdressing and clerical work – even in the public sector although less so there than in the private sector – are most affected by lower pay and zero-hour contracts.

I am aware that the Minister of State has had widespread consultations, and that employer organisations have argued that we have the fifth highest national minimum wage rate in the European Union. This argument, of course, falls on its face because it totally ignores the higher living costs of our country. Higher wage economies like ours come with very high costs of living. We only have to think of energy costs, which the Minister of State’s colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, is doing nothing to address; mortgage and rental costs; extortionate child care costs; and transport costs. Our public transport system is totally lacking compared to many other countries.

Over the last decades, but especially since the economic crash, the ideal of social Europe seems to have been buried by fiscal and economic neoliberal conservatism. A feature of this new, harsh economic Europe is the steady fall in wages across many eurozone economies. An article in the Guardian newspaper earlier this week discussed the failures of the eurozone and argued that, since the introduction of the single currency, wages across Europe have been driven down. Workers, along with their wage rates and conditions, have been used as the mechanism to make economies “more efficient”, as our leaders in Frankfurt and Brussels would say. Those workers have borne the brunt of this.

The heaviest loss has been to the German workforce. In 14 years, German workers have seen hardly any wage rises. According to the article, the higher skilled, higher paid jobs are disappearing out of Germany and going to the much lower paid states in eastern and south-eastern Europe. Gerhard Bosch, a German expert on inequality, said that lower paid jobs and the numbers of the low-wage workforce are almost at US levels. There is a neoliberal economic movement to try to transform the European economy into an American-type one, which is a totally different constitutional, economic and political set-up. I do not think we should emulate it in Europe.

More recently, our focus has been on Greece. This is the first opportunity I have had to discuss the matter. I find the weasel words of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance on the Greek crisis disgraceful and an affront to the Irish people. We are naturally in solidarity with the Greek nation and recognise it as the home of European civilisation. The Greek people are valiant and hard working, and they have been absolutely traumatised by vicious austerity for seven and a half years. I hope that, tomorrow or Friday, the Government will be able to stand over some sort of a settlement which gives Greece reasonable prospects for the way ahead and does not bury them further under this crushing austerity.

The crisis and the phenomenon of austerity are not just limited to Greece. As I said to the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, this morning, the housing and homeless crisis is the legacy of their term in government and is of Greek proportions. Across Europe, we are seeing an increase in austerity and a concentration of low pay in many sectors. The media, often controlled by wealthy individuals, as we have seen, have the relentless mantra of constantly cutting back on rewards for workers. Their arguments often make no economic or political sense.

In Europe, the rich continue to grow their wealth while the poor and the ordinary are feeling the pinch the most. While the banks got bailed out, Europe’s ordinary citizens were sold out. What happened to the social Europe of Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors, great visionaries in the foundation of Europe and in the Socialists and Democrats grouping in the European Parliament? They were the founding fathers of Europe and of the euro and we are now looking at a landscape of ferocious pressure on workers and a downward spiral of wages. In that context, I welcome the Bill.

Section 4 of the Bill outlines the duties of the Low Pay Commission, stating that it “is designed to assist as many low paid workers as is reasonably practicable” and that “over time, [the national minimum hourly rate] is progressively increased”. I am aware of the contrast with the British system, which has applied incremental rate rises while we have had major stops and jumps. I commend the Minister of State on seeking to address that. A 2006 Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, study found that irregularly adjusting the minimum wage can have a detrimental impact on employment as it can create uncertainty for workers and indeed employers. The study noted that smaller, incremental increases, which might follow from this legislation, were preferable. I, therefore, welcome those provisions.

Why, though, has the Minister of State chosen to retain the power to accept or reject a recommendation by the commission as outlined in section 6? I hope that the recommendation would always be positive. Why did he decide to follow the UK’s model of keeping the Low Pay Commission in an advisory role, as opposed to the German Mindestlohnkommission, minimum wage commission, founded in January, which has the same set-up as the Irish Low Pay Commission? I note that the structure of our Low Pay Commission is similar to that of its counterparts in other large European economies.

I agree with the Minister of State that a consensus-based approach is usually best for recommendations on public policy. However, a consensus may be difficult to reach with employers in sectors which are historically characterised by very low pay rates. It can be particularly difficult when we already have statements from organisations such as the Small Firms Association criticising the functioning of the commission as well a likely recommendation to increase the minimum wage this year. I completely disagree with the argument that increasing the minimum wage will automatically lead to those on higher pay scales demanding increases.

Schedule 2 of the Bill provides for the membership of the commission and seeks to strike a balance. There are three members representing low-paid workers and three representing employers. There are a further two experts with proven competence in economic research and statistical analysis. I asked a parliamentary question on the recruitment process for the commission earlier in the year and the Minister of State gave me a reasonable answer.

Earlier this year, the Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, released a research paper entitled “Cherishing all equally: economic inequality in Ireland”, which highlighted growing inequalities in our country. The research indicated that Ireland is currently the “most unequal country in the EU […] before taxes and social welfare payments are included”. This confirms the importance of progressive taxation and social protections such as this legislation. As I have previously stated, the TASC report cogently notes:
The two poles of economic inequality are the concentration of income and wealth on the one hand and the number of people unable to meet their material needs on the other.
Various IMF studies have shown that reducing income inequality through redistributive methods does not hurt economic growth and actually helps it. Indeed, at TASC’s annual conference, which took place on Friday last in Croke Park, Professor Özlem Onaran, a leading international economist based at the University of Greenwich, suggested that a pay rise generally across Europe would stimulate growth. Professor Onaran argued that “wage moderation policies are counter-productive and lead to a stagnation of economic growth”. She went on to explain that her research, which included Ireland, showed that “a fall in wages leads to lower consumption because workers spend more as a proportion of their income compared to those who earn income from profit”.
The Pobal HP deprivation index involves studies of small areas of the Irish population and has been an ongoing process over the years. To what extent will the Low Pay Commission address the disparities in costs for workers in different parts of the country? The Minister of State and I are familiar with the urban costs, and the Minister of State also represents rural areas. This is an important issue which I hope the commission will look at.
Will the Low Pay Commission have a role in examining a living wage in further detail? The Tánaiste told me on a number of occasions in earlier debates that this was an idea of which she was very much in favour. I have long been a supporter of the idea of introducing a national living wage, which was first advocated in the UK by a community coalition known as “London Citizens”. They began the campaign based on the principle of fairness and this has had a great impact on the adoption of a living wage in various areas of the UK, even to the point of agreeing a model for calculating the living wage, which is then reported each year. In Ireland, the living wage has been calculated by ICTU to currently be €11.45 per hour, significantly higher than the current national minimum wage.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights in Article 25 and the UN International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights in Article 11 both highlight the right to an adequate standard of living, and a living wage is defined as one which “makes possible a minimum acceptable standard of living”. At the beginning of May, I asked a parliamentary question as to whether the Minister of State might consider introducing a living wage and continuing the tradition Deputy Maloney talked about earlier. I was told the Minister of State had a deep interest in the living wage initiative and that he was going to hold a forum on the issue at some stage this year. What was the outcome of that? Was the forum held and what input might it have in the discussions on the minimum wage?
Ms Nicola Sturgeon, the current and, we should say, great First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party and the other Taoiseach – as we know, there are two taoisigh in these islands – has been brave enough to ask businesses in Scotland to sign up to a nine-point Scottish business pledge whereby pay would be at least £7.85 per hour, which is over €11, instead of the current minimum wage of £6.50. The pledge is part of a campaign to promote fairness and economic growth. NERI’s paper from March 2014, A Living Wage for Ireland: Some Considerations and Initial Estimates, also concluded that “the implementation of a living wage offers significant potential to enhance the living standards of low income workers and their families”. This is something we could look at in the longer term as a core objective of social policy in this country. While I agree this Bill is a step in the right direction, there is certainly more that could and should be done to help lower-income workers.
Earlier this year, the Minister of State and 70 others voted against my High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill, which we lost by 71 votes to 26. That Bill provided for the establishment of a high pay and wealth commission on a permanent basis in the Central Statistics Office. The fact that I wanted to put it within the CSO was one of the Minister of State’s main points of opposition to the Bill. However, I only did that because the Bill would have involved expenditure and I could not have a charge on the Exchequer when bringing legislation before the House. That commission was intended to carry out research on all levels of pay and wealth in the State and to inform public policy, which I believe is the way forward.
Coming up to October and the general election campaign, we will all be trying to put forward the best possible plan for the Irish people for the next four or five years. However, we sometimes do not know what we are talking about and we do not know the realities of the issues. It has often been said that people in Norway or Sweden can simply telephone their revenue organisation or the equivalent of the CSO and find out what a Minister, a parliamentarian or anyone else in the country was paid last year. This gives us an idea of how we could frame taxation policy most efficiently in this country. The Low Pay Commission and low pay idea is only part of what we need to do. We need to look at everything and we need to find out who is worth what. For example, there were obscene levels of pay in the banking and financial services industry before the crash. Pay of €500,000 might be regarded as chicken feed and only a minor salary, and some people wanted €3 million, €4 million and €5 million, and sometimes up to €70 million or €80 million, and that type of obscenity. At the same time, the political representatives of such people are calling for harsh measures to contain costs and wages at the lower end for the vast bulk of workers.
While the Bill before us today is creating a commission to look at the low income earners, my Bill was intended to take a top-down approach and to examine the levels of very high pay and wealth in the country and to look across the full parameters of the private sector and public sector, and then to inform public policy coming into the budgetary process. While today is a very important step, and I commend the Minister of State on getting us to this point, I would hope that, in future, we would know what we are talking about in terms of remuneration, or, as the famous AJF O’Reilly used to say, compensation. We should all know clearly what compensation we will get for doing our various tasks in the economy. I support the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State’s response and to receiving the commission’s first report.

Tags: Low Pay Commission, Minimum Wage

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON QUESTIONS REGARDING UPLIFTS IN RENT SUPPLEMENT

24 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will provide, in tabular form, the number of applications for an uplift in rent supplement that have been received in 2015 to date; the number granted; the number refused; and of those refused, the reasons provided for the refusal; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24815/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Since 2011 the Government has slashed significantly the total amounts of rent supplement. The tenancy sustainable protocol in January was welcome and has helped. The previous reply we got in the House from the Minister stated that 500 families had been uplifted at that time. That was a few weeks ago. However, I would like to know the numbers of those who were refused. The Minister did not recognise that the Department did not have a legal leg to stand on in relation to uplifts and market rents, which is why the sustainability protocol emerged. Making a family homeless through lack of support of rent supplement was not an option to the Minister, even though she slashed it by hundreds of millions of euro in the past four years.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Deputy Broughan needs to go back and check his figures.

Rent supplement plays a vital role in housing families and individuals, with the scheme supporting approximately 68,000 people at an annual cost of €298 million. Over 5,600 claims have been awarded in 2015, of which almost 1,600 are in Dublin.

In response to the current market difficulties, the Department has implemented preventative measures under rent supplement to provide for flexibility in assessing customers’ individual accommodation needs through the National Tenancy Sustainment Framework. The framework applies both to existing rent supplement customers and also to new applicants who qualify for the scheme. Under this approach, tenants’ circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis and rents are being increased above prescribed limits throughout the country as appropriate. Notices have issued to community welfare service staff, twice within the past 12 month period, reminding them of their discretionary power to award a supplement for rental purposes. The Department is also working with Threshold’s tenancy sustainment service in Dublin and Cork city where supply is most acute.

This flexible approach has already assisted over 2,100 rent supplement households nationwide to retain their rented accommodation through the payment of increased rent payments. A divisional breakdown of this figure is provided in the following tabular statement. Statistics are not maintained regarding the total number of applications made for increased payments or their outcome. However, where community welfare service staff are notified of a potential threat of tenancy loss due to rising rents, flexibility is provided where the uplift request is reasonable and in line with local rents for similar properties.

The Department has also undertaken a communications campaign which seeks to encourage tenants at risk to contact the Department or the Threshold tenancy protection service as early as possible.

I can assure the Deputy that I am keeping the Department’s response under review to ensure that the necessary supports continue to be provided.

Increased Rental Payments by Division – 15 June 2015 *(see table on Oireachtas website)

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The core part of the Minister of State’s response, about delays in helping people to avoid homelessness, does not answer my question. He states there are no statistics. The biggest failure of this Government by far has been housing. As I said to the Taoiseach here a couple of weeks ago, and as both of the Ministers at the Department will be aware, every Thursday and Friday evening the homeless unit in Parkgate Street is completely under siege. Each weekend perhaps 70 families are not able to receive any emergency accommodation. There is no room at the inn for those families day after day, week after week. It is an intolerable situation. Some Members in this House have criticised Greece but this is a situation that mirrors or is worse than some of what is happening in Greece. We have five or six hotels completely full. We have dozens of other hotels and guest houses where many rooms are taken up with such families. The previous figures, which the Government only gave us in April last, showed that over 1,100 children and 500 families were homeless.

There has been no action on this matter. Next week a Minister will visit my constituency, Dublin Bay North, where hundreds of families are homeless, to launch a couple of dozen apartments. The Minister of State’s colleague, Senator Hayden, is holding a meeting today about the deficiencies of rent supplement. Will he bring in legislation on rent regulation and at long last, before this Government ends, declare a housing emergency and introduce the equivalent of FEMPI for housing?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I do not know whether the Deputy is advocating that we go down the Greece route where there would be no social welfare or safety net to catch vulnerable people and no transfer through the Department of Social Protection to the most vulnerable.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I said that the Government was emulating Greece in this regard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, the Minister of State has the floor.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: The Deputy can either ask a question and get an answer or he can shout at me again, whichever he wants.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am not getting answers.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: The Deputy is well aware—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: There are no answers for homeless families.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy, please. The Minister of State without interruption.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Deputy Broughan had an opportunity to stay within the Labour Party and work on solutions, but he always seemed to like opting out instead of doing that.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are opposed to rent regulation. The Minister of State knows that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, stop. The Minister of State is entitled to reply.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: There is no use in smiling, Tánaiste. That is the reality.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: Look, Deputy—–

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Just reply, please.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: The Deputy asked a question and I will give him an answer.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Go ahead.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I served on Dublin City Council for long enough with Deputy Broughan. He knows the challenges of housing and homelessness that the country faces.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Yes.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: The Deputy well knows that there is a range of challenges that need to be addressed. To answer his specific question, he also knows well that the collapse of the construction industry has meant that virtually no houses have been built in the past six years. There was no money to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I thank the Minister of State.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: No, I want to say something. Deputy Broughan throws out simple solutions like “increase rent allowance”. Increasing rent allowance—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: No, I asked for rent regulation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputies, please.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: —–will not resolve—–

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must be fair and call—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Hold on. The Minister of State is trying to twist my words. I asked for rent regulation, but the Labour Party will not be allowed to introduce it because the majority party in government and the main party on this side are bitterly opposed to rent regulation. They represent the landlords.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Will the Deputy please ask a question? I am sorry, but our time is up. We will revert to the Minister of State then. Does the Deputy have a question?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Will the Tánaiste meet homeless people, people who are on the housing list and the national housing association and coalition in the coming weeks?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: That question was not addressed to me.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: No, but continue.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys: The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, will table proposals to the Cabinet regarding rent certainty before the summer recess.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger: How long will we keep hearing about that?

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE URBAN REGENERATION AND HOUSING BILL 2015

19 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, even briefly, on this very important Bill. I welcome some belated action from the Government to address some of the issues that have led to our dire housing and homelessness crisis. At the outset, I would like to state that this Bill will not go very far towards solving our growing homelessness problem any time soon and will not reverse the undue hardship that has been caused to the mental health and well-being of thousands of families, particularly children, over the past number of years during this Government’s tenure. This time tomorrow evening when the Dáil will not be sitting, up to 70 families will be urgently seeking emergency accommodation in this city and will not get it. The Minister of State; the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Fine Gael and the Labour Party are responsible for this. This tinkering with Part V and so on will not do what is necessary to resolve this problem tomorrow when five hotels will be packed with homeless people and people will be sleeping in cars and trying to survive in the airport and shopping centres. This is the legacy of the Government and Fianna Fáil.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil together dismantled our social housing programme in the 1980s. I believe in direct action on the part of the State in trying to resolve this crisis and that local authorities must become the key developers of social housing rather these mollycoddled developers who failed us desperately all the way through the 1990s and the noughties and then walked away. We employed them through NAMA and looked after them and now here we are trying to set them up again for the 2020s. This was the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael agenda down through the decades. Let us face it. One of our predecessors, former Minister Jimmy Tully, was able to mount a huge social housing programme when this country was far poorer in the 1970s. I disagree with Deputy Catherine Byrne, whom I respect, when she talks about building large social housing estates. We have historic and beautiful estates in this city like Marino, Donnycarney or Kilmore along with hundreds I could mention that were built primarily as social housing in this city. The reason we have the crisis in this city in places like Parkgate Street is because the Progressive Democrats influenced, Thatcherite Governments led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael destroyed our social housing programme.

I know this Bill is intended to tinker with some minor aspects of the organisation of site levies and that Part 2 brings in the vacant site levy. I welcome this as far it goes. It has been proposed that local authorities will charge this levy annually from 1 January 2019, which is a long time into the next Dáil, until lands are brought into use. However, it is not clear when they will be brought into use. Is it the case that, as the distinguished journalist Paul Melia recently put it, developers will be able to avoid the vacant site tax for up to three years by seeking planning permission but never building homes? When one looks through the detail of sections 6 to 13, it seems like an incredibly long drawn-out process between compiling the vacant sites register under section 6 of Part 2, appeals against entry on the register under section 9, determining market value under section 12 and appealing the market value under section 13. The land will be vacant for years while this legislation is working its way through An Bord Pleanála and the courts. I welcome subsections 2 to 7 of section 17 which cover instances where the waiver will not apply regarding significant connections with the new owner. I also welcome section 23 which stipulates that the proceeds of the vacant site are hypothecated for positive purposes. A former colleague of mine, Councillor Andrew Montague, argued very h2ly that public lands should be subject to the levy as well.

Section 29 amends section 48 of the 2000 Act.

Why is it necessary for the reduced development contributions to be retrospective? Why is this provision included in the legislation?

While I welcome the Part V provisions, why will only 10% of housing developments with nine units or more be allocated for social housing, given that we know an additional 18,000 units are needed on an annual basis?

The Bill is a tiny step forward and represents a tinkering with legislation which failed in the past. It is not a solution for the people waiting on Parkgate Street this minute, or who will be waiting this time tomorrow and over the weekend. We need emergency legislation. The Government must declare a housing emergency and take the necessary action, to be led by the local authorities, to build social housing in this city and throughout the State.

Tags: homelessness, housing crisis, Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015

 

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015

11 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am sharing time with Deputy Naughten. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I would like to voice my support for the general thrust of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2015. The Bill will go some way towards strengthening our current legislation, and that is a starting block from which we can move towards the dismantling of zero hour contracts, poor working conditions and victimisation of workers who wish to be represented by trade unions, as we saw in recent weeks.

In February 1998, as enterprise, trade and employment spokesperson in the House, I introduced the first trade union recognition Bill on behalf of the labour and trade union movement. This followed lengthy consultations with trade union and employee representatives and was especially directed at assisting unionised workers in Ryanair, where chief executive Michael O’Leary refused to engage with his own workforce and its trade union representatives. I recall the bitter hostility to the proposal from some employers and in particular from US companies based in Ireland and from IDA Ireland acting on their behalf. A key mechanism in the 1998 bill was subsequently adopted in the 2001 and 2004 Industrial Relations Acts and later attacked in the 2007 Supreme Court decision on Ryanair v. IMPACT. That brings us back to today’s legislation.

I welcome Chapter 2, which restores the legislative framework for REAs, and Chapter 3, which does the same for sectoral employment orders following a lacuna for many years in this area. In July 2011 the High Court found the JLC wage-setting mechanisms to be unconstitutional and struck down the employment regulation orders, EROs, which had applied under the Industrial Relations Act 1946. In 2013, in the John Grace Fried Chicken case, the Supreme Court further struck down Part III of the 1946 Act. Hopefully, these infirmities in earlier legislation have been fully rectified in sections 5 to 20 of this Bill and future court challenges regarding the constitutionality of Parts 2 and 3 will not occur. To have allowed our industrial relations machinery to exist without such legislation for a number of years was unacceptable, and I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, has moved at last to restore this legislative bulwark for good industrial relations.

I have some concerns regarding the provisions in section 7(3)(C) relating to REAs, whereby the trade union must be “substantially representative of the workers to whom the agreement relates”. In section 14(1)(A)(I), relating to sectoral employment orders, there is a similar provision, whereby the trade union must be “substantially representative of the workers of the particular class, type or group in the economic sector”. It will certainly now fall to the Labour Court to define these clauses on a case-by-case basis. I hope that significant groups of workers will not be disenfranchised by these sections in the actual operation of the Bill. Another big worry for workers and their representatives, as the Minister of State will have observed in the preparatory period of the Bill, is that there do not seem to be many compliance and enforcement provisions for Chapters 2 and 3 in the published Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will return to these issues in his response to the debate and on Committee Stage.

Part 3 of the Bill will amend existing legislation, as mentioned earlier, in order to insert definitions of “collective bargaining” and “excepted body”. The nub of Part 3 of the Bill is the provision of a better legal route for workers to go to the Labour Court for reviews of their salary, terms and conditions, which is very welcome. However, the Bill does not address the fundamental right to trade union recognition and representation, which I tried to address 17 years ago, in a forthright way, or the deplorable impact on workers of the 2007 Supreme Court judgment. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights clearly protects freedom of association, which includes the right to bargain collectively. Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights also provides for the right of collective bargaining and collective action. I note, for example, that Michael Doherty of Maynooth University has expressed concern that the term “voluntary engagements”, which the Minister of State has inserted into the definition of collective bargaining, may be open to wide interpretation and that Ireland has had, until now, perhaps the weakest legal protection for collective bargaining in much of the EU. Unite trade union has also expressed fears that the retention of the concept of “excepted body” in section 23 may allow companies to negotiate with their employees only through an employer-sponsored association or an employer-friendly company union.

Like other speakers, I welcome section 35 of Part 3, which provides for the amendment of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in order to protect persons who may be victimised or dismissed for being a member of the trade union. Only a few weeks ago we heard from Dunnes workers in this very building about serious intimidation and victimisation of workers who stood up for their basic rights.

It is disappointing to see that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to include, once and for all, the right to full recognition for trade unions. This is a missed opportunity. However, I welcome the small improvements the Minister of State has made in this Bill and I commend him on that work.

Tags: Industrial Relations, Labour Court, Trade Unions

 

DÁIL SPEECH QUESTIONING MINISTER O’SULLIVAN ON PRE-SCHOOL SERVICES FOR AUTISTIC CHILDREN

10 Jun 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the current status of the six organisations providing educational services to children with autism; her plans to roll out these services further; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21863/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: In reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister confirmed that six private organisations, Jonix Educational Services, PALS Preschool, the Shine Centre for Autism, Hope Montessori Autism Care Centre, Aurore Child Development Centre and Early Intervention Support Services, EISS, had received between €2.2 million, in the case of Jonix, and €0.54 million for the 2013 to 2014 terms. They provide preschool education to young children with autism. I understand this funding comes from home tuition scheme payments. What is the status of these private organisations? Has a review of their effectiveness been carried out? How were decisions reached regarding the allocation of contracts and funding in each of these cases? I have asked the Minister and her predecessor this question on numerous occasions throughout the history of this Dáil without a satisfactory answer. The Minister recently sent me a detailed answer in written form but it raises many more questions.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Where parents of children who are eligible for home tuition have sought alternative arrangements to be put in place for the tuition, the Department has responded by putting arrangements in place with six private preschool providers which provide group tuition to children in a class-type setting. Each of these providers was selected by the parents. The Department will consider similar arrangements with other private providers should parents of eligible children request this. In recognition of the demand for group arrangements by parents of children who are eligible for home tuition under the scheme, the Department now advises all such parents of the option of entering a group arrangement with other parents of children for whom home tuition has been sanctioned. Parents wishing to enter into such an arrangement must notify the Department in advance for approval. The arrangements must conform to the general terms of the scheme.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: How are decisions made regarding the allocation of these contracts and funding? I have previously asked the Minister about the terms and conditions placed on service providers and about how the tendering process operates. In her lengthy written reply to me, the Minister mentioned a contract given to Jonix in 2008. Other organisations provide similar services, but no contracts were made with them. In her reply of 4 June the Minister also stated that the Department had no contract with preschool providers and it is essentially, as she reiterated today, between the parents and the relevant provider. How can it be the case that more than €3.2 million was paid to service providers who must adhere to certain conditions to qualify when the Minister states that she has no contract with them?

What is the delay in publishing the policy report of the National Council for Special Education which was recommended by the Ombudsman for Children?

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: We do not have any contracts. It is essentially the parents who choose the provider, and the arrangement is made between the parents or the group of parents and the provider. One organisation was agreed on back in 2008 and the rate was calculated on the basis of a collective rate for each group of six children, for whom the Department pays a sum equivalent to 48 hours calculated at the primary qualified rate and 72 hours calculated at the unqualified rate. There is a general procedure for home tuition which is used for these groups. This is the arrangement that has been there for some time and continues under the scheme, so the Department does not have a direct relationship.

The Deputy asked me another question at the end.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: It was on the policy report of the National Council for Special Education which was recommended by the Ombudsman for Children.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Recommendations have been made on special education and changing to a new model. I am not sure whether this is what the Deputy is asking about. We have decided that we do not have enough information, particularly on complex needs, to introduce the new model in September but we will introduce pilots of the model in September. I announced some variation, particularly on hours for children with Down’s syndrome. The actual full new model will not be introduced in the next school year.

Tags: autism, Pre-school services

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION INTO IBRC

10 Jun 2015
I am probably the only Deputy present who voted against the blanket guarantee in September 2008 and its subsequent renewal during the term of this Government. I voted against the guarantee because it was a totally unjustified and economically crazy policy and I feared it would leave Irish people with a large burden of debt for decades to come. I also feared that members of the golden circle of insiders that produced the crash, who are represented in this House by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, would continue to escape the consequences of their profligate behaviour and would be permitted to protect their key assets. My fears are proving to be justified.

  Would any future historian draw much of a distinction between the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government that was in office until March 2011 and its Fine Gael-Labour Party successor? The Siteserv and IBRC controversy simply highlights the widespread fire sale of business and financial assets by IBRC, the National Asset Management Agency and other State banks as well as a result of troika diktats issued from late 2010 onwards. The bottom line is that nothing changed after the 2011 election when the new Taoiseach and his Minister for Finance chose to steadfastly persist with the policies of the two previous Taoisigh, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen, and the former Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan.

 Deputy Catherine Murphy and her valiant staff have done Irish people an enormous favour over the past year in doggedly questioning the sale of Siteserv in early 2012 and the treatment of high-value customers of the now liquidated bank. I commend the Deputy on her perseverance, painstaking research and great courage in pursuing the major questions raised by her inquiries.

 The arrival in this country of vulture funds and various financial sharks from early 2009 onwards raised many worrying concerns for citizens across many sectors of the economy, from commercial property and housing to financial institutions such as Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. One of these key concerns related to the strange sale of Siteserv. Most people were familiar with the Sierra company, which was heavily involved in developing infrastructure such as the gas network. People looked closely at Siteserv when they realised it was a Denis O’Brien company and had secured a €500 million contract from Irish Water to meter every household. Similarly to other Deputies, I had no knowledge of the Siteserv balance sheet in 2012 and no way of knowing whether the net price of approximately €45 million was a fair return for citizens or a knock-down price that squandered €100 million of State assets. However, articles on the sale published in Phoenix magazine and The Sunday Business Post were alarming. While the Siteserv company was seriously indebted to IBRC in 2012, it was a profitable going concern with a workforce of several thousand. We now know that in 2010-11, its sales increased by 11% to €169 million and turnover increased again in 2011-12. I note that an article in the Phoenix argued that with an annualised EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation – of €15 million, the sale price multiple should have been at least six, indicating that Siteserv was worth a minimum of €90 million in early 2012.

 Allowing Siteserv management to handle the sale seems to have been a serious error by the chairman and chief executive officer of IBRC. The exclusion of trade buyers from the sale also seems unbelievable. It has also been suggested that a sum of between €90 million and €100 million could have been realised for Siteserv if its important British subsidiary, Deborah Services, had been sold separately, given that the company had been purchased for €60 million as recently as 2008.

 I welcome the belated decision of the Government to establish a commission of investigation under section 3(1) of the Commissions of Investigations Act 2004. The schedule of terms of reference appears to be reasonably comprehensive. Nevertheless, I support the proposals made by Sinn Féin and Renua to reduce the relevant write-off limit by 90%. I also welcome the decision to shine a light on the Department of Finance, because a major question mark hangs over the future of the Minister for Finance. Why, in July 2012, did the Minister not order the independent review of the Siteserv sale that Deputy Catherine Murphy had sought for so long? Why did he not at least order the special liquidator to check out the Siteserv sale and similar sales concluded in the two years after the so-called prom night? Why, just weeks ago, did he appoint a company with a clear conflict of interest, KPMG, to lead the review of the Siteserv sale? Given the scale of these errors, a Minister in a similar position in most other European Union jurisdictions would have resigned by now. I call on the Minister to do so, as it is still the right course of action.

We must also ask about the knowledge of the other three members of the so-called Economic Management Council, the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and the former Minister, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, of the nagging and profound public concerns about the scale of write-downs in IBRC, NAMA and other State financial institutions. Did they care and did the Minister for Finance care?

Thanks to the appalling decision of September 2008 taken by Fianna Fáil and supported by Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and many Independent Deputies, €35 billion of precious public money was sunk into the dead carcasses of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. The totally discredited Rabbitte-Gilmore leadership of the Labour Party jumped on the same bandwagon in March 2011 and over seven years, the most vulnerable citizens in our society have been crucified with cutbacks and ever increasing charges and debts. Hopefully, the investigation now underway will shine a further bright light on all those responsible for these terrible failures and the suffering of our people.

Tags: Catherine Murphy, Commission of Investigation, Denis O’Brien, IBRC, SiteServ

 

DÁIL QUESTION TO MINISTER FLANAGAN ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES IN TIBET AND UYGHUR NATION

20 May 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on movements for self-determination in Tibet and among the Uyghur nation of Central Asia. [19204/15]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister had a very successful visit by the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr. Li Keqiang, and also met his counterpart, the Chinese Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Wang Yi. Progress was made on lifting the 15 year BSE-related ban. These changes and the meeting are important and several years ago we had the visit of the Chinese President, Mr. Xi. Did the Minister raise with Mr. Wang or Mr. Li the situation of the two large so-called autonomous regions of China, Tibet and the Uighur nation?

Deputy Charles Flanagan: The Government follows events in Tibet and the Xinjiang Uighur region on a very close basis. Ireland, together with EU partners, believes that constructive dialogue between the Chinese Government and representatives of the Dalai Lama is the best way to address differences and tensions in Tibet and to reach a solution that respects Tibetan culture, language, religion and identity. It is important for the long-term peace and stability of the region that the two sides come to an agreement on the future of Tibet. To this end, we continue to encourage a resumption of meaningful dialogue. Ireland respects the territorial integrity of China and recognises the necessity of preventing acts of terrorism, as well as the adoption of counter-terrorism strategies that seek to prevent acts of terrorism. We condemn all acts of violence. However, we also take the view that security forces should practice restraint in exercising their competences to avoid providing fuel for further radicalisation and support the EU’s call on the Chinese authorities to address some of the deep-rooted causes of the frustration of the Uighurs, ensuring their right to practice their own culture, language and religion is respected.

Through the formal framework of the EU-China human rights dialogue, which was established in 1995, the EU continues to share with China its experience in the field of human rights protection and promotion and urge the Chinese Government to take clear steps to improve the human rights situation in that country. At the most recent dialogue, which took place in December 2014 in Brussels, the EU and China held discussions on human rights issues, including the rights of persons belonging to religious minorities. The dialogue allowed the two sides to have a detailed exchange of views on a wide range of human rights issues. There was a specific focus on recent developments in China, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, especially in Tibet.

I had an opportunity at the weekend of raising the situation in Tibet and the matter of human rights with my counterpart from China, Mr. Wang Yi.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I welcome the Minister’s comments. I recall that as a backbencher, he expressed concerns regarding the repression of religious minorities, including Christians in Pakistan. In the case of Tibet, we are dealing with a 60-year history of repression of its people, their Buddhist religion and their profound and ancient traditions. Representatives of the International Campaign for Tibet made a presentation at the 28th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva setting out the human rights situation and outlining the growing despair of the Tibetan people. There has been a great deal of outrage recently about what is happening in Crimea. The reality is that in 1958 and 1959 the People’s Republic of China essentially absorbed a millennia-old nation.

The World Uyghur Congress has provided a long list of instances of oppression of the Uyghur people. The International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation states that Uyghurs are subjected to compulsory unpaid labour, including in the construction of a pipeline to export local petroleum resources to other parts of China. The Uyghurs are the only population in China consistently subjected to executions for political crimes, and these executions are both summary and public. A UN training seminar for Uyghur youth took place in Geneva in November, which is a positive development. However, there is ongoing and serious repression of people in the region, which used to be known as East Turkestan. The Uyghur Government, which is in exile in Kazakhstan, is calling on countries such as Ireland, which has its own history of repression, to speak up for it. Will the Minister now take a much more vigorous role in standing up for these two oppressed peoples? It is particularly apt that we should seek to help them at a time when we are reflecting on events in our own history in the period from 1915 to 1923.

Deputy Charles Flanagan: We will continue to raise our concerns on these issues with our European partners. A united EU voice of 28 member states is more appropriate in many circumstances than the voice of one country. Having said that, I personally raised concerns regarding persecution on the basis of religion or belief when I addressed the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last March. Ireland raised these same concerns in interactive dialogues with the council’s special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief and with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights during the 69th session of the Third Committee of the General Assembly in 2014.

Last weekend, the Taoiseach, the Chinese Premier, Mr. Li Keqiang, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Wang Yi, and I had a good discussion in a spirit of friendship in which we emphasised Ireland’s deep commitment to human rights, the public concern in Ireland regarding human rights in China and the issues upon which we respectfully disagreed, including capital punishment. We welcomed the resumption of the EU-China human rights dialogue last December and expressed the h2 wish that it proceed again this year. I had a useful, open and informal discussion with my Chinese counterpart on these issues. We discussed the situation in Tibet, with particular reference to the humanitarian situation in the aftermath of recent earthquakes in Nepal.

I assure the Deputy that we will avail of every opportunity to raise the concern contained in his question.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: We have been reflecting recently, as we regained our sovereignty, on what happened in our own country. Perhaps it is an appropriate time to vigorously raise the issue of these two small nations. Has the Minister met the World Uyghur Congress or the International Campaign for Tibet or has he any intention of doing so? I know there have been visits by the Dalai Lama and so on, but is that something the Minister would be keen on, given his interest in these areas in the past?

Deputy Charles Flanagan: I assure the Deputy that Ireland and our EU partners will continue to encourage a resumption of the meaningful dialogue with the Chinese Government and other representatives. It is important, while acknowledging and respecting the territorial integrity of China, that we also encourage the Chinese authorities to respect at all times the rights of all persons belonging to minorities and their right to freedom of expression.

Tags: Asia, China, Foreign Affairs, Tibet, Uyghur

 

DÁIL SPEECH QUESTIONING MINISTER BRUTON ON CADBURY JOB LOSSES

14 May 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will report on the status of the inter-agency group set up to deal with the proposed job losses in Mondelez-Cadbury in Coolock, Dublin 5; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: As the Minister knows, it is well over three months since there was the threat of serious job losses at Mondelez-Cadbury in Coolock. We had a meeting in his Department and an inter-agency group was supposed to be set up, to be led by Enterprise Ireland. However, I found out from workers in Liberty Hall last Friday that e-mails were not being responded to, that no meetings had been held and that the momentum behind the inter-agency group, such as it was, was to find alternative jobs rather than to save the jobs that were under pressure. As the Minister knows, the workers have tried to come forward with mutually beneficial alternatives to Mondelez-Cadbury management, but they have received no assistance whatsoever from him or his Department.

Deputy Richard Bruton: Immediately after the announcement by the company concerned, I established an inter-agency group to co-ordinate the response to the proposed job losses. The group, chaired by Enterprise Ireland, will seek to secure alternative employment in the area affected and ensure departing workers will have access to supports they need from State agencies in seeking retraining, access to social welfare supports, advice on employment rights and advice and support for those workers who intend to start their own businesses. The group includes local enterprise offices, IDA Ireland, Solas, the education and training boards, the Department of Social Protection, the MABS, the Northside Partnership and the Citizens Information Bureau.

Enterprise Ireland has held meetings at all three of the sites affected by the proposed rationalisation. The inter-agency group made it clear that it stood ready to meet unions and staff representatives at any stage. This offer was deemed premature while discussions between the company and the union were still at a preliminary stage. However, the group remains ready to meet employee representatives at their convenience. Enterprise Ireland has been in contact with the company on a continuous basis regarding the assistance it can provide for the restructuring plan.

I understand management and employee representatives are in discussions on a variety of issues. I also understand the inter-agency group has been in direct contact with a representative of the workers and that a meeting is being arranged.

I continue to monitor the position very closely. The Labour Relations Commission stands ready to assist in the negotiations. Enterprise Ireland has held meetings with the company’s management on a weekly basis since the announcement of the proposed job losses. I have directed Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland to continue their drive to find alternative projects for the area affected.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister still does not seem to get it. The key point is that the work force in the constituency wants to have the current jobs retained and that the threat of the loss of jobs to Poland needs a response. People have asked for assistance in terms of the accounting, economic studies and supports the Department might be able to provide for the workforce. However, the Minister is clearly indicating that he will not do any of this and that his role is to provide some method of seeking alternative employment. That response is simply not sufficient.

As I understand it, Mondelez-Cadbury is part of the joint 3G Capital-Berkshire Hathaway Group which has been imposing very severe conditions and cutbacks at its plants in the United States. We now have this transfer of production to Poland where, obviously, workers will be on much lower pay and conditions. We have a process whereby workers are being hired on temporary contracts and totally different conditions than the existing workforce. This is a very important industrial workforce in an area that used to be part of the Minister’s constituency and has always been part of mine. It has to be said the Minister’s response is incredibly lacklustre and lethargic.

Deputy Richard Bruton: I completely deny that that is the case. Enterprise Ireland will support any restructuring plan agreed by the unions and the company. Once they work out a plan, we stand ready to support it in many ways, for example, by developing lean processes, providing training and support in undertaking research and development. Obviously, a restructuring plan has to be negotiated between the company and the unions and it has to be done collectively. The Labour Relations Commission stands ready to assist in that process. If there are issues about access to accounting details, the Labour Relations Commission has a long record of helping the two parties to deal with these issues in an effective way. It stands ready to assist both the unions and the management of the company to hammer out a restructuring deal of that nature. When that is done, Enterprise Ireland stands ready to support it with a suite of supports. We had the very same situation at Bausch and Lomb where there was a huge difficulty and very difficult changes had to be made. New investment was attracted by the company, as Cadbury is committing to doing in this case. Just 12 months on, we had the recent announcement of expansion in employment. There is a track record of using the Labour Relations Commission and the supports of the agencies involved to develop alternative plans. That assistance is available to both sides.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: A long time has passed since the meeting we had at the Minister’s Department, yet we have seen absolutely nothing happen. As I said, I have been told e-mails from SIPTU and the workforce have not even been replied to. I received an e-mail yesterday from the Minister and another this morning from one of the officials at Enterprise Ireland. There is foot-dragging. It is not the proactive approach on which I would have thought the Minister would have embarked, particularly in the case of something that affects his own constituents. For example, there is supposed to be an €11.7 million reinvestment programme, but we know nothing about it because the Minister, Enterprise Ireland and the rest of the group simply have not been engaged. The clear message is that people want to have the jobs retained in this historic plant which has always been at the cutting edge of food production. They do not want the Minister to come along and talk about people becoming entrepreneurs and so on, which, for many, is totally unrealistic. They want the Minister to save the current jobs.

Deputy Richard Bruton: The company has committed clearly, both to me and the workforce, to making this investment. That is the context in which the negotiations are under way. The negotiations were delayed to some degree, for reasons the Deputy will know, but they have now started. We stand ready, through the Labour Relations Commission, to assist on the technical side. The Labour Relations Commission has a long record of supporting workers, unions and managements in working through restructuring. The company is committed to making the investment and Enterprise Ireland is committed to working with the company through the suite of supports it offers. The support of the agencies involved is available. However, this is a negotiation between the workers and the company and a solution has to evolve. We will facilitate its emergence in every way we can.

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014

8 May 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am delighted to be here to support h2ly the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill 2014. It is typical of Deputy Maloney. In his time in this House he has brought forward a number of thoughtful and necessary pieces of legislation over a range of fields and none is more valuable than the proposed amendment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, whereby section 4 will be amended by substituting “2 years” for “7 years” to significantly bring down the period of time within which the illegally acquired assets of criminals will be able to be taken back by the communities from which they were stolen in the first place.

This is another important piece of legislation and it reminds us of the rise of drug-fuelled crime in the period from the 1980s to the mid-1990s which led to the terrible assassination of Veronica Guerin and the virtual collapse of law and order in many areas of our cities. This Bill brings us back to that era and the helplessness that many communities felt. I was one of the people who did not regard “Love/Hate” as a valuable contribution to drama because, like many of the citizens in this city, I lived through the situations depicted in that drama. It is very painful for communities to see, even in a dramatic form, the visualisation of the kind of suffering of those times when, in a period of five or six months, five or six people would be assassinated and where the iron grip of major drug gangsters was able to intimidate communities.

In the early 1990s, the party to which I belonged was involved in Government and we took a valuable step in establishing the Criminal Assets Bureau and giving it powers, which have been sustained by the Supreme Court, to ensure that the viciously ill-gotten gains that destroyed communities in this and other cities would be brought back to the community. From its establishment in late 1996 to the end of 2011, the Criminal Assets Bureau successfully froze some €70 million worth of assets. It has 70 staff from the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection, backed up by the Chief State Solicitor. It has done a very good job over the years and the money returned to the Exchequer, even in the period of the last Government under the 2005 Act, has been very valuable. In 2008, for example, over €6 million alone was returned and €1.5 million was returned in 2009. The figure for 2010 was €3.1 million and it was €2.7 million in 2011.

In economics, we sometimes debate the hypothecation of taxes. In the recent UK general election there was a major discussion of the value of specifically hypothecating taxes for particular purposes. Most of us would agree that the proceeds of ill-gotten gains from major crime should be returned to communities. In that context, one of the most appalling things about this Government’s record has been the way drug task forces have had their expenditure slashed by 70%.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: No, they have not.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Sorry?

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: It is 9.8%.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: It is 9.8%. What is the actual figure in euro?

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Since 2009 there has been an effective 9.8% reduction.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I know some drug task forces have had cuts of up to 70%.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: The Irish Times has already accepted that the relevant report was wrong.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I will follow that up with the Minister as it is his new area of responsibility. I was in correspondence with him recently about some of the anti-drugs structures in our own constituency. The cuts in this area were fairly vicious and must be restored. When people are doing a good job in taking on young people whose lives have been interrupted and whose family life, education and community activity have been totally devastated by drug-fuelled crime and they come to a community body for support, such as Kilbarrack coast community programme in Dublin Bay North, it is important we back them up to the hilt and give them whatever support is necessary. This should comprise finance and the enforcement of rules relating to community employment so that we can take on such people as support workers in the anti-drugs campaign.

I look forward to the initiative taken by my colleague, Deputy Maloney, which will ensure the funds recovered will be seen on the ground helping communities through community and sport development.

I recall several years ago when Deputy Rabbitte was the leader of the Labour Party, a Bill was introduced whereby An Garda Síochána would be given powers in the court system to indicate the directors of major drugs organisations, as had been done with terrorist organisations. Unfortunately, Deputy Rabbitte decided he could not support such a measure where these gangsters could be pointed out and identified. I lost my job as Labour Party Whip at the time for supporting that Bill because I believed it was critical this House and An Garda Síochána took the h2est possible measures against these gangsters at every turn. That is what this Bill will do. My colleague, Deputy Conaghan, eloquently put forward a h2 case in this regard, as he did in our many years together on Dublin City Council. We must take the h2est possible measures against these vicious criminals and unravel their grip on communities. We must step in as early as possible to ensure they do not get a grip on young children, teenagers or young people and embroil them in criminality.

This legislation is another important step forward. I assume the Minister of State will give it his full support and we will see it in action in the future as another major deterrent to this type of crime. I commend Deputy Maloney for introducing this legislation and hope the Minister of State will implement it quickly.

 

Tags: Private Member’s Bill, Proceeds of Crime

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON TOPICAL ISSUE DEBATE ON NATIONAL BUS STRIKE

5 May 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Tomorrow is International Workers’ Day and it is astonishing that a Government with Labour Ministers would have countenanced the privatisation of significant portions of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann networks. The stonewalling of the NBRU and SIPTU by Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and his colleagues has brought us to the awful situation where between 400,000 and 450,000 bus commuters will be left with no bus transport tomorrow and Saturday. Some 93% of workers with Dublin Bus and 95% of Bus Éireann staff felt they had no choice a few weeks ago but to vote for strike action. We have just had a news flash that the strike is going ahead, which is very disappointing. We welcomed that there was some engagement at the Labour Relations Commission.

Both SIPTU and NBRU have outlined their profound concerns for future pay and conditions of the workforce resulting from the proposed tendering and privatisation of Dublin city and national bus routes. Recent assurances from the companies and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, may be worth no more than similar assurances given to the Aer Lingus workforce, as Deputy Daly noted this morning. We have the example of the UK since the Thatcherite period in the mid-1980s when its national public bus network was privatised and eventually ended up as a cartel divided geographically between five operators.

The Taoiseach and the Minister have repeatedly spoken about the public service obligation subsidy of €90 million. They did not mention that the subsidy has been slashed by the Government and its predecessors since 2011, year after year.  The PSO for Bus Éireann was cut by €15 million, down from €49 million to €34 million. In the case of Dublin Bus, the PSO only represented approximately 30% of turnover whereas in many other European countries, PSOs are in the region of 70% of turnover. Both companies have produced surpluses in recent years and have brought forward many driver and route efficiencies, including network direct in Dublin.

It is very disappointing that even at this, the 11th hour, negotiations have not succeeded. I h2ly urge the Minister to address the six areas of concern to the 6,000 staff and their trade union representatives. What progress, for example, has been made on registered employment agreements? It is my personal view that the Minister should simply abandon this crazy plan and put all of his Department’s resources into developing a proper Dublin and national bus service.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister mentioned a statement of contractor employment standards, SCES, for proposed private operators on 10% of the PSO routes. However, across a wide range of policy areas, including finance, banking, energy and communications, regulation has not worked. We have cartels in energy with companies charging what they like.

I also asked about the registered employment agreement, which the Minister said would be published. Why has it not been published? Why has this work not been done? The Minister said sectoral employment orders can be made, but he has given no details. There is nothing here for very worried workers and their families.

The Minister referred to TUPE but we know the weaknesses of TUPE. It does not cover pensions and so on. There is no basis in EU or Irish law for the steps he is now taking.

We do not need this privatisation. It is not necessary. It was foisted on us by the late Séamus Brennan of Fianna Fáil. This is a Fianna Fáil production now being directed by Fine Gael to bring us a privatised public bus sector. The two of them will probably be together after the general election in a Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael Government.

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: The Deputy should not hold his breath.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: This is what has been planned. This is what the Irish Independent wants to happen with Fine Gael having perhaps eight seats in Cabinet. They invented this.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: No, we did not.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The late Séamus Brennan wanted to privatise a quarter of the bus network.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: That is correct, but he never got his way.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I urge the Minister and I urge Labour Party Ministers to abandon this policy and give Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann the resources they need to produce the kind of good bus service we want. He should not bring us down this road, which has ended up with cartels and price-gouging in the UK, overseen by the current Conservative-led Government.

Tags: Bus Éireann, bus strike, Dublin Bus, privatisation of bus routes

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE SPRING ECONOMIC STATEMENT

1 May 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important discussion on our spring economic statement for 2015. Of course, it is extremely clear that the Government is gearing up for a general election and apparently hoping that the Irish public have very short memories. Let me start by saying that I welcome a process of regular economic and fiscal debate in the Oireachtas. For many years on the public accounts committee and finance committees I called for a move towards the Dutch and other EU models of full citizen and parliamentary consultation and discussion over each fiscal year on the choices and possible tax and spending decisions for each annual budget. In that context, the idea of a spring economic statement and national economic dialogue are welcome in principle as moves to democratise the budgetary cycle and process.

Tuesday’s statements by the Ministers, Deputies Noonan and Howlin, were a great opportunity to signpost key policies to address the ongoing suffering and near despair caused to so many Irish citizens and households by the relentless policy of austerity since autumn 2008. On the Order of Business I identified one of those areas of total despair this morning regarding our homeless families. Sadly, both Ministers’ statements, as I wrote on Tuesday, are “devoid of content” and do nothing to lay out a new approach on the key elements of our economy and society. The full spring statement and draft stability programme documents comprise together simply a history of economic austerity and a projection for its essential continuance to 2020. It remains incredibly sad that the Labour Party has seemingly completely tied its fortunes to Fine Gael in the economic planning to 2020. The failure of both Ministers to chart a new way forward is another clear sign that this Government can have no hope of being re-elected.

From the Minister, Deputy Noonan, we learned that a “fiscal space” of €1.2 billion to €1.5 billion has been found courtesy of Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker of “Luxembourg Leaks” fame to provide tax reductions and investment in public services and that the fiscal space will be split 50:50 between tax cuts and expenditure increases in budget 2016. The €600 million to €750 million projected increases for public current expenditure in 2016 represent little more than 1% of gross voted current expenditure and even less of gross current expenditure according to a table in the stability programme update. As there is a fiscal straitjacket imposed on Ireland by the EU six pack and two pack fiscal rules, the outlook in the stability programme projections down to 2020 are equally bleak. Of course, we are assured by the Minister that the annual debt ratio reduction of one twentieth of the difference between the overall level of national debt and the 60% of GDP threshold will be painless because “growth will do the heavy lifting”. There was a mistake in the Minister’s speech in that respect. The continuing total adherence of Fine Gael and Labour in following Fianna Fáil’s betrayal to brutal and unyielding austerity means that major needs of our people now in housing, health and education will go unmet and that new humane and dynamic programmes will not be countenanced by this outgoing conservative Government.

The smug self-congratulating tone of these statements echo the comments of the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, with respect to the Greek struggle under Syriza, led by Mr. Tsipras and Mr. Varoufakis, to alleviate the colossal debt burden imposed on Greece by its EU and other creditors. Ireland’s debt burden is in the same league as Greece and will remain so under the type of lethargic bookkeeping prescribed for us by the Ministers, Deputies Noonan and Howlin. An earlier Greek Government did Ireland an immense favour by lowering the interest rate on part of the troika debt, which also greatly benefitted us. Recently, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, gave me comparative figures for Greek and Irish national debts in terms of gross national product, GNP, or gross national income, GNI, as overall totals per capita. The Minister reported that “at the end of 2013, the general government debt per capita figures were €46,950 for Ireland and €28,848 for Greece while the comparable gross national income per capita figures were €32,391 and €16,486 for Ireland and Greece respectively. These equate to a debt to GNI percentage of almost 145% for Ireland and 175% for Greece”. Clearly this comparison demonstrates that there remains a shocking burden of debt also on the Irish nation. In the forthcoming general election, the Government’s failure to follow up on the 2011 election promises and the 2012 EU commitment will be a huge reason for its demise.

Both ministerial speeches congratulate each other and the Government on the levels of employment and perceived fall in unemployment. In reality, employment levels have still not reached the pre-crash total of 2.1 million and a huge cohort of workers, approaching 400,000, are part-time, with tens of thousands underemployed with poor wages and conditions and little or no security. The Tánaiste yesterday announced that the number of persons unemployed now stands at 353,000. The headline unemployment rate would be at Greek or Spanish levels if the five full Aviva stadiums of young Irish emigrants had not fled the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour austerity behemoth since 2009. The Ministers, Deputies Howlin and Noonan, referred to the end of emigration and indicated that young people are now returning to our shores because of our recovering economy. I wonder are they aware of the fact that it took a whole 12 minutes for the almost 4,000 international experience Canada working holiday permits to be snapped up this year as opposed to the seven minutes it took for them to go last year. It was especially disappointing that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, cannot give us the details of a new capital programme until June.

The country needs radical investment in infrastructure, including housing, health, education, public transport and roads, water and sewerage, and coastal defences. The savage cuts in capital investment since 2011 have been most disastrous for social housing. The complete disregard shown towards citizens in need of social housing has been the main driving factor in forcing hundreds of families, including 911 children, into emergency homeless accommodation in the Dublin region alone. The most recent figures from the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, DRHE, revealed there were 411 families in emergency accommodation, 251 of which were headed by single parents and 160 by couples. This means the total of number of adults and children in family emergency accommodation stood at 1,482.

My office is in regular contact with the central placement service of Dublin City Council and Dublin Region Homeless Executive to make representations on behalf of many Dublin Bay North constituents experiencing housing and homelessness issues. As I informed the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, figures provided to my office show that on any given day between 60 and 80 families are unable to access emergency housing, yet the statements of the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform did not contain one word about this emergency.

House prices have increased this year by 16.8% compared to last year. Coupled with new mortgage rules for first-time buyers, these rising prices mean there will be no affordable homes for first-time buyers, in any case not in the capital and other larger cities. I repeat my earlier question and ask the Minister to explain the reason the Government has not employed financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation to address social housing and rent regulation.

The constraints of the budgetary envelopes implicit in ministerial statements mean that serious austerity continues in our vital health and education services. The health service is failing dramatically, with lengthy waiting lists to see consultants and for diagnostic procedures and treatments. Recruitment to the health service is in crisis and accident and emergency departments continue to be overcrowded and underresourced, while the Minister frequently gives the impression of being an innocent bystander. The additional €65 million in hospital funding announced this spring is welcome, as is news that general practitioner care will be free for children aged under six years and those aged more than 70 years. Nevertheless, a large number of significant shortcomings persist in the health service, including in disability services for which funding has been cut to the bone.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, trumpeted the fact that under this Fine Gael and Labour Party coalition, 150 schools had been built and 1,700 new full-time teachers had been employed. However, the figures he provided on demographic change show that at least 3,500 more primary and secondary school teachers will be required by 2020. The Irish National Teacher Organisation’s April-May newsletter, which Deputies received recently, highlighted that more than 500,000 primary school pupils are attending what INTO describes as the “most overcrowded classes in the eurozone”, with 76% of children in classes above the EU average, 24% of classes made up of 30 or more students and 66% of classes having between 20 and 29 pupils.

The most shameful aspect of the Government’s performance is the ruthless cuts it has made to the means of the most vulnerable citizens who depend mainly on social welfare assistance and benefits. Those in receipt of social welfare payments have endured cuts to child benefit, lone parent’s payment, carer’s allowance and respite care grants, whereas developers, bankers and the elite have had debts written off and bonuses and contracts awarded to them. At least one quarter of the population hovers slightly above or below normative measures of poverty in society.

I was not surprised by this week’s spring economic statement as it was, unfortunately, another example of a conservative Fine Gael Party Government with no vision, backbone or empathy that is backed by a Labour Party which, unfortunately for the Deputies concerned and their local organisations, is facing annihilation in the forthcoming election for turning its backs on the very people who voted it into government.

Tags: austerity, General Election, Spring Statement

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE TOPICAL ISSUES DEBATE ON CADBURY COOLOCK JOB LOSSES

23 Apr 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: It is astonishing that the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, is not in the House, since this so deeply affects the constituency of Dublin bay north as well as the other 40 or so constituencies.

Six weeks ago there was a welcome meeting in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on the serious matter of the loss of 160 jobs in Cadbury-Mondelez in Coolock. We heard about an interagency group comprising IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the workforce and their representatives SIPTU, Unite, the TEEU and other trade unions and, crucially, the management. It is astonishing that, as we heard last Friday, none of this has happened. The Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, did absolutely nothing for a key facility in his own constituency and the workers and their trade union representatives now have grave concerns over the loss of chocolate tonnage from the Coolock plant which transferred to Poland with the loss of 63 jobs and 2,500 tonnes of product. Incredibly, while Coolock will lose these jobs, Mondelez is recruiting for virtually the same number of workers in Poland and the Coolock plant will now have well below 30,000 tonnes of product in 2015, with the workforce threatened with a reduction to 350 or 360.

The workers and trade unions inform us that Mondelez operates a remote tolling system under its European operating company in Zurich. It is very difficult for the workforce or its representatives to get any information on company turnover and performance in Ireland, Europe or north America.

We are informed that operations at nine US factories have been transferred to Mexico and that the worldwide workforce of Mondelez is being cut by 4,000 but we do not know these facts and the Minister seems to have no interest in finding out the facts about this particular company. This is why the failure of the senior Minister and the agencies to engage with the company and give any supports over the past six weeks has been deeply disturbing.

This valiant workforce needs assistance urgently to maintain this very important and iconic plant. The workforce has requested accounting and economic assistance from Mondelez. I understand Mazars has begun to give some support in this regard to SIPTU. I ask the other three Ministers of State who represent Dublin constituencies to listen to this. One Minister of State represents or is trying to represent Dublin Bay North. The Minister said six weeks ago that Dublin is forbidden from getting direct capital investment. What about other supports such as energy research or taxation for the Coolock operation? It is very disappointing that the Minister is not here. Why is he not here to hear about this very important and urgent matter in his own constituency – one of the most historic factories in this country – and in Kerry? We need some action.

The process outlined by the Minister of State, Deputy English, is incredibly roundabout, slow and cumbersome. When we walked down the steps of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation almost seven weeks ago our expectation was that this process would be up and running soon and that the enterprise agencies, including the local enterprise offices and so on, would have made contact with the workforce and Mondelez pretty immediately. We are now being told it will be another few weeks before this happens, which is incredible. I echo the comments of Deputy Kenny that we need to meet again with the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to ensure urgent action on this matter. It beggars belief that the workers and their representatives and Mondelez were not immediately offered a meeting by the agencies.

I referred earlier to the number of other supports that workers believe would be helpful to them in making a robust counter-proposal to Mondelez management. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, appears to have done absolutely nothing to bring these forward. I mentioned previously that the Minister has a poor track record in the greater Coolock area in terms of supporting jobs. There are many empty factories in the area and estates that are run down. Despite having been a Minister for more than four years, he has done nothing for the area. He makes announcements here, there and everywhere – I understand he is in the Gulf now – but there is no delivery for Dublin Bay North. That is the problem. He does not deliver for his own constituency and he needs to do so.

The company concerned has employed thousands of people and supported thousands of families down through the decades. We need a response on this matter. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, chose not to serve on the Northside Partnership, which showed his lack of commitment to the area. Other Deputies were expected and delighted to serve on that partnership. We need a response from Deputy Bruton in his remaining months as Minister.

Tags: Cadbury Coolock, job losses, Mondelez

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON DEPUTY BROUGHAN’S HIGH PAY AND WEALTH COMMISSION PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL – SECOND STAGE

1 Apr 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I thank the Deputies who are present this morning. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill on Second Stage. The Bill provides for the establishment of a high pay and wealth commission on a permanent basis in the Central Statistics Office to carry out research on levels of pay and wealth in the State, to inform public policy in order to promote a fair income distribution across society, and to provide for related matters.

I also welcome the establishment of the Low Pay Commission, which I hope will be on a statutory basis as soon as possible. I also hope that the new Low Pay Commission will quickly move the national minimum wage of €8.65 an hour to a national living wage which is calculated at €11.45 an hour.

The genesis of the High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill before us lies in my efforts and those of other Opposition Deputies in the 31st Dáil, many of whom are here this morning, to develop progressive budgetary policies to end cutbacks and austerity. Last October, I made an independent submission on taxation and spending measures which would have delivered a progressive balanced budget but during the preparation of those policies, I again noted a dearth of information across widespread areas of higher income and wealth distribution in Ireland. While there is long-standing useful information on much of public sector and social protection incomes, there are huge gaps and unknowns in the information on earned income and levels of wealth in the Irish economy. The Bill seeks to remove this serious drawback for future framers of public policy.

Over the decades, valiant efforts have been made to remedy this information deficit. Brian Nolan’s seminal work in 1991 for the Combat Poverty Agency entitled The Wealth of Irish Households was a benchmark study based on the ESRI’s 1987 Survey of Income Distribution, Poverty and Usage of State Services. Mr. Nolan’s work famously began, “little is known about the wealth of Irish households and the forms in which it is held” and made the critical observations that general surveys do not provide a reliable source on small subsets such as the top 1% of the population, and that the best-off households are less likely to respond to such surveys.

The key definitions under section 2 are of “high pay”, which is defined as “gross income from employment or other sources in excess of €80,000”, and “wealth” which is defined as “net wealth, which is the value of an individual’s gross stock of assets after the deduction of all debts and liabilities”. Since 1991 and up to very recently, the Irish public and policymakers have had to rely mainly on international studies and so-called rich lists to gain any insight into the levels of higher incomes and stocks of wealth. One such service is the Credit Suisse investment bank’s annual global wealth reports, and the Credit Suisse 2014 report puts Ireland into a list of countries with medium wealth inequality. That means the richest 10% of households, or the top decile, owns more than 50% of the nation’s wealth. According to Credit Suisse, Ireland’s top decile of households owned 58.2% of national wealth in 2000, 57.8% of that wealth in 2007 and still has a staggering 58.8% of national wealth in 2014. The Irish public is also familiar with The Sunday Times rich list and Forbes magazine’s “world’s billionaires list”, where 1,826 billionaires, worth $7.05 trillion are identified, and where most of the top 100 names have personal wealth greater than many countries’ gross national product. A few weeks ago, the Sunday Independent’‘s Mr. Nick Webb produced that paper’s Irish “rich list” for 2015, with 300 billionaires and millionaires named having total wealth of €84.4 billion, with a whopping increase in wealth of €13.65 billion over the past year. The top 20 has the usual super-rich personalities, including the Mistry family with €14.5 billion, Mr. Denis O’Brien with just under €6 billion—–

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should refrain from naming people in the Chamber.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan:  —–Mr. Martin Naughton with €1.6 billion, Mr. Dermot Desmond with—–

An Ceann Comhairle: No. It is established practice that we do not name people in the Chamber.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: This is in the Sunday Independent.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not care where it is. This Chamber has its own rules.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: U2 have €700 million.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please adhere to my ruling.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: It is public knowledge.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am seeking that—–

An Ceann Comhairle: There are rules in this House.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: That is what the Bill is about. We want to know what those people have in order to frame policy.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are other ways to find out. This is the national Parliament.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Mr. Nick Webb, a journalist, tells us that the sources for these figures include stock market shares listed in Dublin, London and New York, as well as stakes in private companies and the most recent sets of accounts from Irish, UK and Northern Irish company offices. However, he concludes that financial digging can only uncover so much and that some people were excluded from the list because their finance or the finances of their companies were too opaque for us to accurately assess. We know now, thanks to Swiss leaks and Luxembourg leaks, that the information gathered may not necessarily show us the full, real picture of wealth. HSBC Swiss accounts were held by 353 clients associated with Ireland to the amount of around $3.5 billion; of these 51% has an Irish passport or nationality. The Revenue Commissioners have recovered very little money from those accounts.

Those of us working closely with our constituents and listening to concerned Irish citizens know that inequality in Ireland is real; it is deepening in many areas and it is devastating for the majority of citizens in receipt of social welfare payments, in low-income employment and on zero hour contracts. The information gathered by the high pay and wealth commission I propose would further highlight the realities of wealth distribution in Ireland and allow for the Government to more appropriately address fiscal and economic policies.

The nine-person commission as proposed in the Bill will come within the established structure of the Central Statistics Office, with section 10 of the Statistics Act 1993 amended by inserting a new provision on a high pay and wealth commission. When I first prepared the Bill approximately two years ago, I considered amendments to the Companies Act and corporate governance but I eventually decided to go down the wealth commission route. The CSO has the expertise and skills to complete the specific functions proposed. Under Section 5, the commission will have a core role of regularly informing the public about levels of income and wealth across Irish society. Data collection and compilation of statistics on income and wealth will be the starting point. The commission’s research will include best practice models of income distribution and try to determine appropriate structures in which the setting of executive high pay and other remuneration will be reformed. It will also have a role in developing more equitable fiscal and national economic policies.

In a very small way, this work has already begun, whereby the CSO is a member of the Household Finance and Consumption Network and carries out the household finance and consumption survey, which was published last month. However, this survey is limited to only 5,419 households out of 2 million and the usual problems persist with obtaining frank disclosure of income and assets by the very rich, whose instinct seems to be often to hide this income and wealth. There are 10,522 households that are contacted by the CSO. The Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, released its research paper, Cherishing All Equally: Economic lnequality in Ireland, on 16 February this year and it highlights the growing inequalities in our country. We are at risk of reaching US levels of income inequality, with TASC’s research indicating that Ireland is currently the “most unequal country in the EU … before taxes and social welfare payments are included”. Some commentators took much consolation in the fact that we are in the middle band of unequal countries, but these include many countries from the “accession of ten”, where there is gross inequality.

The TASC report cogently notes that “the two poles of economic inequality are the concentration of income and wealth on the one hand and the number of people unable to meet their material needs on the other”. TASC notes that “data on income distribution in Ireland is incomplete” but estimates that the top 1% of Irish income earners have 9% of gross income and the top 10% have 34% of gross income and, crucially, 42% to 58% of Ireland’s wealth. That indicates a need for the proposed commission. TASC concludes that gross income inequality in Ireland is the highest in the EU, while net income inequality in Ireland is close to the EU 28 average. It confirms the importance of progressive taxation and social protection. TASC also notes that while Revenue Commissioners data on income is an important source, it tends to act on “tax units” rather than individuals.

Many Deputies will be familiar also with the Pobal HP, or Haase and Pratschke, deprivation index, which clearly shows the geographical location of disadvantaged households in urban and rural Ireland. A recent Nevin Economic Research Institute, NERI, seminar analysed the changes in the composition of this index over time, including how some areas are very badly disadvantaged. Several OECD and World Bank reports also draw attention to a growing trend of income inequality across developed countries, including that entitled Trends in Income lnequality and its Impact in Economic Growth 2014, and many leading economists believe this growth in inequality undermines economic performance. Professor Joe Stiglitz, for example, argues that “ensuring those at the top pay their fair share of taxes – ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and the rich – is both pragmatic and fair”. The economist, Professor Paul Krugman, refers to the Luxembourg Income Study, which shows that primary income and assets are very unequally distributed in nearly all countries. Various IMF studies have shown that reducing income inequality through redistributive methods does not hurt economic growth and actually helps it.

Just after this Bill was drafted I became aware of the work of Professor Thomas Piketty, entitled Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and I subsequently heard him outline its thesis at a TASC conference in Croke Park. I read the book last summer. Piketty builds on the research methodology of Simon Kuznets, an important economist in his field, to put the income distribution question back at the heart of economic analysis. Piketty uses a wide range of income tax, estate tax and national income and wealth data from the US, France, Sweden, Britain, Germany and other countries to produce capital to income ratios for each economy over the past 300 years. That demonstrates the sharp rise in wealth and income inequality since the 1970s, and it parallels what happened in the 19th century somewhat. He attributes ownership of 40% to 50% of national wealth by the top decile in the US after 2000 to the unprecedented rise in top managerial “compensation” – we remember how that was Dr. Tony O’Reilly’s favourite word – and to what he calls the “fundamental inequality formula of “r > g”, where “r” is the average annual rate of return on capital expressed as a percentage of its total value and “g” is the growth rate of the economy. If “r > g” for a period, there will be wealth accumulation, and people on the lower end of the income scale will find it really hard to survive. For Piketty, the solution to “the central contradiction of capitalism, r > g” is “a progressive annual tax on capital” or wealth.

The American labour movement journalist and professor, Sam Pizzigati, has long advocated the concept of a maximum wage. In the UK, the High Pay Centre, an independent think tank, has made important recommendations on how problems associated with high pay could be tackled. It was called the High Pay Commission and it is now funded by the non-governmental organisation sector. Australia had a public inquiry which we could have emulated into some of the outrageous pay levels it saw, and that reported in 2009.

This Bill refers to “anonymised information” in Section 6(1) but the most transparent societies in terms of income and wealth are clearly Sweden, Finland and Norway, the latter of which publishes every citizen’s income and tax details. Norway began this process in 1863 and its skatteliste, or tax list, includes everyone’s personal income, tax burden and where each citizen ranks on a list of national averages. Would it not be wonderful to have that in this country. As Jan Omdahl of the Dagbladet newspaper wrote in 2007, is this not how a social democracy ought to work?

Section 1 of the High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill cites the Title of the Act and states that it will come into operation six months after the Bill’s passing. Section 2 provides for the interpretations while section 3 refers to the regulations which the Minister for Finance may infer and lay before each House of the Oireachtas. Section 4 states that the Minister shall instruct the director of the Central Statistics Office, within six months of commencement of the Act, to establish the commission as an executive office of the CSO. Section 5 outlines the three main functions of the commission and section 6 outlines the specific research project known as the “Executive Pay Project”. Section 7 allows the Minister to confer additional functions on the commission after the order is passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Part 3 of Act refer to the composition, staffing arid reporting of commission, while section 11 in Part 4 is the final section of the Act and provides for the amendment of section 10 of the Statistics Act, 1993 by way of adding a new subsection (4).   I am proposing in Section 6 that the High Pay and Wealth Commission will have a key role in beginning to address the problems associated with high pay, including very high levels of executive pay. Of particular importance is section 6(e) which deals with policy and legislative proposals in respect of bonuses payable to executives and the introduction of caps, timeframes and targets for such bonuses. I note that recently the chief executive of Bank of Ireland deferred some €150,000 of his €950,000 basic income, which was an interesting gesture. A crucial proposal is the development of pay ratios between persons receiving the highest and lowest levels of remuneration and other benefits across the economy, as provided for in section 6(f). The highest paid Irish executive, Owen Killian of Aryzta earned €15.5 million in 2013 alone through remuneration and stock options.

An Ceann Comhairle: Excuse me, but the Deputy knows the rules of the House. Do not name people, please. It is not fair to the individual—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: That is what this Bill is about. It is about naming people.

An Ceann Comhairle: I have to apply the rules of the House. The rules are that names should not be mentioned—–

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The rules are ridiculous.

An Ceann Comhairle:  —–in this Chamber. Please adhere to them.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Okay. According to Paul Sweeney in a recent article in The Irish Times entitled ‘Super rich or super angry: where are you on Ireland’s income pyramid?’, it would take a person on the minimum wage 8,836 years to make what that gentleman makes in remuneration in just one year. Other incredible earnings disclosed by companies listed on the Stock Exchange in 2013 included €12.2 million for the chief executive of Tullow Oil, €7.32 million for the chief executive of Kerry Group and €6.98 million for the chief executive of Smurfit Kappa. Compare these outrageous, outlandish and disgraceful figures to the measly €17,542 per annum that a person on the minimum wage receives.   I am proposing that the executive pay project will seek to establish a process whereby excessively high pay can be addressed at a policy and even legislative level by these Houses. Again, generating accurate information on the extent and levels of pay will be a key starting point for the commission. We should not be closing our ears and getting upset when we hear these figures. This is reality out there in the economy, as the Ceann Comhairle knows very well, given his business history. He knows a little about business, as do I. We need to know the facts. Actually, the working title for this Bill was “Paddy Likes to Know the Story”, which I believe is one of the Taoiseach’s favourite phrases. I am proposing that the commission will publish regular reports as part of this project and that it would prepare recommendations on the introduction of measures such as caps or pay ratios to halt the excessively high levels of pay awarded to executives, particularly in the private sector and to promote much fairer income levels for all workers and citizens.   I believe the establishment of the High Pay and Wealth Commission will be a very useful first step and a welcome addition to the economic research landscape. Its aim is to ensure that when Ministers come into this House they know what they are talking about in terms of income and taxation. That will allow us to have proper debates at budget time, rather than situations like we have just seen this morning where we are scared to talk about levels of income and wealth in this society.

An Ceann Comhairle: I protect the Deputy’s right to make any point he wishes. I only apply the rules in respect of naming people; that is all. The Deputy is quite entitled to make his points.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: We will have to change the rules.

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Gerald Nash): At the outset I would like to acknowledge the Deputy’s consistent commitment in this area. The primary aim of his Bill is to establish on a permanent basis a High Pay and Wealth Commission within the existing structure of the Central Statistics Office. The main functions of this commission would be to research levels of pay and wealth in the State. Its research would promote a fair income distribution across the economy and inform public policy in determining rates and measures of taxation. It would carry out an equality audit of each budget, stand as a member of the European Household Finance and Consumption Network and would also have a specific remit to address the issue of high levels of executive pay.   There is one central reason the Government cannot support these proposals and I will deal with it shortly. Before that, however, it is timely to remind ourselves of both how the economy has been turned around, what the Government has done to protect the most vulnerable during the crisis and how it has brought forward measures to reduce inequality over that period…. [Minister’s Speech]

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister, Deputy Shortall and the other Deputies for their contributions here. I hope we will move forward with the approach advocated in the Bill. Given that we desperately need an approach along these lines, it is disappointing that the Government is not accepting the legislation. The High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill is about transparency and full information on high pay and levels of net wealth. During the 27th Dáil, the first Dáil of which I was a Member, the then Labour Party leader, Dick Spring, often spoke to the parliamentary party about the tough budgetary choices Ireland still faced because of the limited scope for taxation at the relatively low levels of higher income and wealth as indicated to him and the Government by reports from the Revenue Commissioners.

I felt instinctively at that time, however, that the party leader, Dick Spring, was misinformed. It was after all in the period between two extraordinary tax amnesties and before the astonishing revelations of the DIRT, Ansbacher, Flood, Mahon and Moriarty inquiries and scandals. Those amnesties and revelations showed clearly that the savage cuts of the Haughey-MacSharry-O’Malley Governments, which Dick Spring ferociously opposed, were unnecessary as were the later penny-pinching budgets of Bertie Ahern and Ruairí Quinn in the mid-1990s. In the present era of continuing brutal austerity, the Noonan-Howlin fiscal juggernaut has refused to examine the scope for larger contributions to the national budget from the higher paid and those with significant wealth.

The first step, of course, is at least to find out the levels of higher income and wealth. That is why I referred to the Bill on First Stage as the “Paddy and Patricia like to know the story” Bill. Many surveys in Ireland and the UK have shown that people generally have not got a clue about high incomes and levels of wealth. The majority of people on much lower incomes just do not realise the levels of wealth and income in this country and in others. Deputies are included, of course, under the high pay definition of this Bill and the public is already familiar with Deputies’ levels of assets and economic interests from the annual publication of our statements of registrable interests. In the past, I have called for similar statements to include all journalists and commentators on national affairs. But in fact, even anonymised as is provided for in this Bill, the fullest information on all higher incomes and wealth levels should be available to citizens and policy makers.

The Minister of State indicated that a key problem he saw with the Bill was locating it within the CSO. However, we are always constrained on these Friday morning debates because we cannot bring in legislation that will incur a charge on the Exchequer. I looked at different methods of obtaining this vital statistical information. There is also the whole mantra around Revenue. Every time I asked the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, for reports on the HSBC scandal, for example, and asked him detailed questions on Revenue, all we got were very general, vague answers.

During the preparation of the Bill, I examined two main approaches to obtaining information. These were changes to Irish and EU company law and corporate governance on the one hand and on the other, the creation of a high pay and wealth commission. Regulatory changes introduced in 2013 under the UK Companies Act 2006 apply to all large and medium sized companies and groups and require that directors’ remuneration reports must compare on a percentage basis the salary and bonuses of executives with those of their average employee. This legislation does not include executives’ long term incentive plans, LTIPs, however. As the Minister of State is aware, that is usually the largest single component of executive pay in large companies. In late 2013, the US Securities and Exchange Commission also required US companies under the Dodd-Frank law of 2010 to disclose how full CEO salaries compare to those of their median worker. In the EU, Commissioner Barnier spoke about a directive in 2015 making disclosure of the remuneration policy of companies mandatory.

The broad second approach, and that which I have followed in this Bill, is to establish a high pay and wealth advisory body on a permanent basis. In the UK, such a body, the High Pay Commission, was established by Compass with the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and it showed clear evidence of runaway executive salaries over the past 30 years. Under section 25 of the Statistics Act 1993, the Taoiseach may issue an order compelling the CSO to conduct a survey and compelling enterprises in particular categories which are listed in that order to respond to the survey. We clearly do have the power to obtain this information on a statistical basis. Under the amended section 10 of the Statistics Act 1993, in this Bill, the high pay and wealth commission is placed within the Central Statistics Office. The commission and CSO will also have access to data on executive level pay in reports of listed companies, in surveys from private consultancies like Mercer and IBEC and from the Revenue Commissioners, which could be used anonymously for the purpose of the commission.

In my first speech, I referred to the TASC report, Cherishing all equally: Economic inequality in Ireland, and to its crucial insights into the level of income and wealth inequality in this country. The publication of the CSO’s first household finance and consumption survey on 29 January also adds significantly to our knowledge of Irish income and wealth. That survey was based on 5,419 relevant respondent households, out of 10,522 surveyed, and showed that 71% of all households which replied own their main residence, 10.8% own land and 13.8% own other property. Households in the bottom two deciles of income distribution have 11.4% of net wealth compared to nearly 40% for the top two deciles. A total of 56.8% of the households that replied have some form of debt – the fifth highest in the euro zone – with a median value of debt of €63,000 for indebted households. While this survey is a snapshot of households at one period, it again highlights the inequalities in Irish wealth distribution. The role for the commission as proposed in this Bill would have a much broader reach effectively detailing the income and wealth of every adult Irish person.   The reaction of many media commentators, of course, is to question or try to rubbish the implications of the information provided by research bodies like TASC, NERI and the CSO. Chris Johns asserts that the inequality debate is “one of the worst instances of statistical abuse since Pythagoras” and identifies a “thinly hidden agenda” to target the richest 1%. Dan O’Brien, in his typical manner, declares that “claims of Ireland being very unequal are utter bunkum”. My former colleague, Deputy Joanna Tuffy, also took a rather complacent view of the levels of inequality in Ireland and the devastating impacts of her Government’s austerity policies in a February article in The Irish Times.

We know of course from the brilliant study of the Irish newspapers and broadcast media by Julien Mercille, The Political Economy and Media Coverage of the European Economic Crisis: The Case of Ireland, with which the Acting Chairman may be familiar, how profoundly journalists of the right-wing dominated newspapers and media ignored and greatly benefited from the massive property bubble from 2000 to 2007. Indeed, Dr. Mercille was in this House just a few days ago. Those media outlets h2ly backed the blanket guarantee and the horrendous austerity policies which still accompany it. The same newspapers and journalists rarely, if ever, mention the huge information deficit regarding high income and wealth.

Section 5(2)(D) of the Bill requires the commission to carry out an equality audit of each national budget and based on this independent assessment to make recommendations about the manner in which a fair distribution of wealth and income in Irish society can be ensured when making budgetary adjustments. This section is in response to the longstanding criticism of the brief equality and poverty impact sections in budget day papers which of course are not equality audits at all. Particularly critical is the equality budgeting campaign, a broad coalition of trade unions, NGOs and citizens which was founded in July 2012 due to the increases in inequality and poverty, and which I hope the Minister of State will support through the final budget of this Government.

All of the research so far points to dangerous levels of inequality in Irish society. The Government has insisted on continuous austerity measures to target the most vulnerable in Irish society, as Deputy Shortall has shown, pushing those who did not cause the crash and recession into poverty, negative equity and national debt. The recent European Commission annual report on Ireland showed that we have the highest proportion of jobless households in the EU and very clearly points the finger at the high cost of child care. Our two-tier healthcare sector is also highlighted in the report.

One other area I wish to bring to the Minister of State’s attention, which I believe will also increase inequality over the next couple of years, is the commencement of the huge operation of quantitative easing, QE, by Mario Draghi and the ECB. From this month, the ECB is making monthly purchases worth €60 billion of public and private assets including government bonds, asset backed securities and covered bonds. The aim is to bring inflation back to the ECB’s official target of below, but close to, 2% and the QE purchases should total €1.08 trillion by September 2016. Approximately 80% of the new purchases, of course, are the responsibility of national central banks. It is feared, however, that most of the new money will be tied up in the eurozone’s banking, financial and corporate sectors rather than trickling down. This is happening on the Minister of State’s watch – quantitative easing may well make the inequality worse because the money is going to stay with those bankers with their bonuses. Yesterday we read about a basic salary of €1 million in Bank of Ireland, which we still partly own and have propped up for some time. There has been no debate and the Minister for Finance is not interested in talking to me about quantitative easing and the impact it may have on inequality.

Public policy from this Oireachtas should, at all costs, seek to avoid this dangerous growth of inequality and the economic conditions promoting inequality. As a further major tool towards this outcome I again commend the High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill to the House.

I thank the Library and Research Service of the Houses of the Oireachtas and in particular Dr. Catherine Lynch for their outstanding assistance in the preparation of this Bill in late 2013 and early 2014. Solicitor, Dr. Brian Hunt, also did excellent work in drafting the Bill for the Library and Research Service. My former parliamentary assistant, Ms Aisling Dillon, and my current parliamentary assistant, Ms Bernadette Grogan, who also did a terrific job in preparing and presenting this High Pay and Wealth Commission Bill

Tags: High Pay and Weatlh Commission, inequality, Private Member’s Bill

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE THIRTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (PEACE AND NEUTRALITY) BILL 2014

31 Mar 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am pleased to support Deputy Wallace in this Second Stage debate on the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Peace and Neutrality) Bill 2014, which seeks to affirm Ireland’s neutral status by adherence to the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention (V), Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. It is a very basic public policy requirement for the management of the foreign affairs of this State. I was also glad to support recently the Neutrality Bill put forward by Deputy Seán Crowe. That Bill was voted down by the Government and I hope the same fate does not befall Deputy Wallace’s Bill today. Since we discussed Deputy Crowe’s Private Member’s Bill, we have heard the President of the European Commission calling for the development of a European army to be specifically directed against Russia. That was followed up by comments from the German defence Minister, Ms Ursula von der Leyen, to the effect that our future as Europeans would include a European army. Elements of the German media, like Welt am Sonntag, have argued that a European army is a European vision whose time has come. We have a lot of movement on that front on the one hand, while on the other hand we can see that the crazy war crimes of the Iraq adventure by George Bush and Tony Blair have resulted in the US, Britain and other countries, including Ireland, being dragged into the horrendous situations in Iraq, Syria, Libya and more recently, Yemen. A focus of this has been the rise in Sunni-inspired extremism, largely motivated by the medieval regime of Saudi Arabia and similar states. In Yemen today we see that struggle bringing desolation and horror to the people of the cities of the Yemeni Republic, as Shia and Sunni sectarianism is acted out.

Almost 12 years ago I supported, along with my then Labour Party colleagues, a Neutrality Bill proposed by the Sinn Féin party which called for the principle of neutrality to be inserted into the Irish Constitution. Deputy Wallace’s Bill goes further and provides that our neutral status shall be affirmed by adherence to the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention (V), Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The enactment of this Bill would mean that neutrality would be enshrined in our Constitution by way of referendum and only a referendum of our citizens could reverse that. It would no longer be, as so many previous Ministers have said, including the former Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Gilmore, simply a matter of policy.

The Minister of State referred to the evolution of the Hague principles. If one looks back to the nineteenth century, one sees that there was a very well thought-out effort by those who wanted to have a peaceful world to produce international legislation which would protect neutral states and, as far as possible, move towards banning war outright. These efforts can be seen in the Geneva Convention in 1864 through to the Brussels Declaration in 1874. At around the time of the development of the Geneva Convention, the Lieber Code, which later became part of the Hague Convention (V), was signed by US President Abraham Lincoln in the context of hostilities during the American Civil War. The first Hague Convention was signed in 1899 and the second in 1907. They were intended to be international treaties outlining the laws on wars and war crimes.

The Hague Convention (V), which Deputy Wallace is trying to insert into our Constitution through this Bill, reads very forcefully to the current generation. Article 1 holds that “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable”, while Article 2 holds that “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power”. Article 5 holds that “A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory”. The convention has enormous relevance and it is astonishing that this country does not adhere to it. The Minister of State has not given an acceptable explanation as to why that is the case today and why we cannot simply proceed with Deputy Wallace’s very thoughtful legislation and put it to the people.

The efforts of those who wanted to promote peace in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were devastated by the epoch of the two world wars.

Some 80 million people were slaughtered. Only in recent days people may have read about the devastation that was wreaked on the women of Germany by the brutal and savage behaviour of some of the allied troops invading from the western side. We have known for many years about the devastation that was wreaked on the women of Germany in particular by troops who arrived from the eastern side and obviously terrible crimes had been committed by the fascist regime, but it is astonishing that we are still hearing about the terrible reverberations of the horrors inflicted in the period of the First and Second World Wars and how ordinary men and women suffered so desperately. Clearly, this convention was completely obliterated from point of view of the innocent Belgian population when Germany invaded Belgium.

The Nuremberg trials codified that the Hague convention must be followed by countries, regardless of whether they had signed it. It is striking that the Minister makes that point about the 33 countries. Deputy Wallace specifically links Ireland’s neutrality to Hague Convention (V), relating to the rights and duties of neutral powers. Under the convention Ireland would be protected from the acts of belligerents, who would be forbidden to move troops or convoys across the territory. The various chapters and articles of the convention outline very comprehensively what Ireland’s neutrality would entail. In an answer in 2013 to a parliamentary question from Deputy Thomas Pringle, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Gilmore, stated that Ireland is not a party to the Hague Convention (V) and that there were no plans for it to become one. He went on to say that military neutrality would remain a linchpin of our foreign policy for the foreseeable future.

The reality is, as Deputies Wallace and Daly have graphically outlined in relation to the use of Shannon, that neutrality has been compromised very severely and very seriously. It is no longer sufficient just to trust the Government of the day to deliver that policy of neutrality. It is the wish of the Irish people. I paid tribute before to the Trojan work of a colleague of ours, Mr. Roger Cole, and the PANA organisation and the campaign PANA has waged over almost 20 years to have a piece of legislation like Deputy Wallace’s inserted into the Constitution. I said during the debate on Deputy Crowe’s Bill that I think we are coming closer to that time now and that the aim of PANA will be realized.

I mentioned in a speech a few weeks ago the attachment of the Irish nation to neutrality, given our history. The founder of the socialist and social democratic tradition in our country, James Connolly, was a ferocious opponent of the lunacy that led to the First World War and to the European elites consigning 80 million people to death and desolation. On Sunday week, we will hopefully be able to salute the successors of Óglaigh na hÉireann on the 99th anniversary of the Easter Rising. In many ways, one can look on that historic event as a ferocious determination to break away from the militarism of the British empire and its determination to prevent a viable independent sovereign state emerging on this island. The Bill before us is part of the architecture that Ireland needs to have. In that context, I warmly congratulate Deputy Wallace and hope to vote for the Bill whenever I get a chance.

Tags: Peace and Neutrality

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON NEUTRALITY BILL

6 Mar 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am pleased to support Deputy Seán Crowe and Sinn Féin this morning on Second Stage of the Thirty-fourth Amendment to the Constitution (Neutrality) Bill 2013. Almost 12 years ago, my Labour Party colleagues and I supported Sinn Féin’s neutrality Bill and I reiterate that support today. The principle of the Bill is the insertion of the principle of neutrality into the Irish Constitution so that the Irish State cannot participate in any war, assist foreign states in any way to prepare for or conduct such a war, save with the assent of Dáil Éireann. The Bill reiterates that the Constitution will maintain a policy of non-membership of military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. By its nature the Bill, if passed, gives an opportunity to the Irish people to reaffirm Ireland’s long history of neutrality.

Given the long history of oppression of our people by British ruling elites it is striking how deeply ingrained in our history is our attachment to the principle of neutrality. Over the two centuries before 1922 almost every year some part of our island was proclaimed by the British authorities and subject to martial law. Even during Ireland’s period of legislative independence, under the College Green Parliament, when we had no government, the Irish Parliament debated in 1793 and 1794 whether that parliament would support England’s war with Spain. The father of Irish republicanism, Theobald Wolfe Tone vigorously opposed that war which then spread into a huge continental war for 25 years against the principles of the French Revolution.

The terrible deaths and enduring trauma of the First World War and the War of Independence, between 1914 and 1923, left an indelible mark on at least 50,000 Irish families and a revulsion for militarism and violence. The founder of my tradition, the social democrat movement and our modern unions, James Connolly, bitterly opposed the First World War and was devastated when the German Social Democratic Party, SPD, supported the German dynasty and the capitalist elite going to war with Britain. Connolly wanted working people in all European countries if they had to go to war to turn their guns on the ruling classes who led them into a holocaust of perhaps 80 million or 100 million dead down to 1945. Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith also tried desperately to include Irish neutrality in the negotiations with Lloyd George in late 1921.

After 1922 it is notable that Cumman na nGaedheal, Fine Gael, never seemed fully committed to Irish neutrality and its best orator, James Dillon, wanted Ireland to intervene on Britain’s side in the Second World War. It is often said that we were neutral on the British side during that war, but Éamon de Valera and his Government, like counties such as Switzerland and Sweden, successfully maintained a policy of non-attachment to the two belligerent sides. We recall the great heroism of the Irish merchant marine during that time in keeping the country supplied and the role of the infant Aer Lingus, which the Government is now prepared to flog off, to maintain our aviation connection during those years.

Éamon de Valera’s famous response to Churchill that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code forcing Ireland into an unwanted war remains a classic text on the ethical basis for neutrality. Unfortunately, as we heard again today, de Valera’s Fianna Fáil heirs have not been committed in the way as he was to that fundamental principle. In the past two decades there has been a growing apprehension that the principle of national neutrality has been steadily eroded on the basis of growing EU and UN commitments and Ireland’s logistical support for American military operations, especially through the use of Shannon Airport by the US military.

The Taoiseach, in typical Fine Gael style, has stated, “[T]he truth is, Ireland is not neutral. We are merely unaligned.” The 1996 White Paper on foreign policy stated that Ireland’s policy of military neutrality would not be changed without a referendum, but that document advocated that Ireland would join NATO’s partnership for peace and participate in missions of the Western European Union, although it states that we should not join NATO or the Western European Union. Despite our policy of neutrality after 9/11, Ireland was involved in a NATO-led ISAF mission to Afghanistan through the provision of military instructors. The Fianna Fáil-led Government before 2011 – the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O’Dea is not in the Chamber – signed the country up to NATO’s partnership for peace, which is often seen as a first step to NATO membership. He negotiated Ireland’s entry into EU battle groups.

These developments took place in spite of Article 29.4.9° of the Constitution, which was inserted during the campaigns on the Nice treaty in 2004 and the Lisbon treaty in 2009. The Minister referred to the triple lock. Article 29 stipulates that Ireland should not adopt any decision of the European Council to establish a common defence where that common defence would include the State. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain and the decision to permit the US airforce to refuel at Shannon Airport, it is estimated that, as Deputy Mick Wallace said, some 2.5 million US troops have passed through Shannon Airport on their way to and from the terrible conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The former Taoiseach, former Deputy Bertie Ahern, and his successors were repeatedly unsuccessfully questioned in the House about the use of Shannon Airport and the failure of Irish Governments to invigilate US flights and ensure prisoners on their way to rendition and possible torture were not passing through an Irish airport. As Deputy Higgins famously said, the questioning was like playing handball against a haystack. As John Lannon and Shannonwatch observed, the UN Security Council did not authorise the military attacks on Afghanistan or Iraq in 2001 or 2003.

I  was one of the more than 100,000 citizens, as was, I understand, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who marched in this city against the Iraq war. For most sentient observers, the regime in Saudi Arabia was the foreign power mainly involved in the appalling and murderous attacks on 4,000 US citizens in New York and Virginia in September 2001, yet the Bush Administration was closely associated with that medieval regime and took no action whatsoever to bring Saudi Arabia’s rulers to account for these horrors.

In the words of Roger Cole, the outstanding leader of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, PANA, it is high time for neutrality to be enshrined in the Irish Constitution. It should not simply be a Government policy position, as the Minister has outlined and to which the Fianna Fáil spokesperson referred, but should be codified as a constitutional lynch-pin of our democracy. Hence my support for the Bill today. I warmly commend PANA, its committee and membership and Roger Cole for their tireless, indefatigable and valiant campaign since it was founded in 1996 to place Ireland’s military neutrality clearly within the Constitution. It is to be hoped the campaign will succeed on foot of initiatives such as Deputy Seán Crowe’s today.

PANA, as Deputy Crowe mentioned, commissioned a RedC poll in September 2013 which clearly showed that the vast majority of Irish people want to enshrine our neutrality in the Constitution. In that poll, 78% of Irish adults agreed that Ireland should remain neutral, 79% felt that Ireland should not support a war in Syria without a UN mandate and 85% were opposed to Irish troops being sent to Syria.

Roger Cole has also drawn attention to the 2011 Fine Gael and Labour Party programme for Government, which stated, “We will enforce prohibition of the use of Irish airspace, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law”. He has also highlighted the emergence of ISIS, the major death toll and destruction which has resulted from the horrendous 2003 invasion of Iraq and the fact that elements of the American economic elite now want to fight a proxy war with Russia over Ukraine. I echo and support the comments of Deputy Mick Wallace on that terrible conflict. It seems incredible that the largest European country would be excluded from the developments that have taken place on the Continent to enhance democracy and co-operation in the past 50 or 60 years.

The continuing mayhem in Iraq, Libya and Syria and the situation in eastern Ukraine should be a primary responsibility for a greatly enhanced UN organisation. Ireland must avoid getting drawn in a military manner into what are humanitarian disasters. For that reason, it is timely that Deputy Seán Crowe and Sinn Féin have presented this Bill to Dáil Éireann today. I fully support it and will vote for it next week.

Tags: Neutrality Bill

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE CHANGES TO ONE-PARENT FAMILY PAYMENTS

5 Mar 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Last weekend, the Tánaiste stated that Labour Party women would not be bullied. I h2ly agree with the sentiment that they should not be bullied and they will not be bullied. Are the changes to the one-parent family payment an example of a Labour Party Minister bullying the 70,000 people, almost all of whom are women, who are in receipt of the payment?

The implementation rules in respect of the jobseeker’s allowance transitional arrangement, JST, clearly include an element of compulsion. One of the Tánaiste’s predecessors who served both as Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare, the late, great Brendan Corish, who is revered by the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, me and many others, was responsible for introducing the first supports for lone parents. Is it not tragic that the leader of the Labour Party is dismantling these same supports?

As the Minister’s colleague, Deputy Brendan Ryan, said recently in a debate on this issue, the rules applying to the jobseeker’s transition payment are a disincentive to work because if a person works for more than 20 hours, the disregard is only €60. Is that not a disincentive? As the Minister knows, I have been involved for decades in trying to assist people and the heads of one-parent families to get back into the workforce. Does the Minister agree that the system, as devised, is a disincentive and coercive because the rules state clearly there will be a penalty rate of the jobseeker’s transition payment and that it can be lost completely if people are not prepared to go through the Minister’s activation programme?

She said in 2012 that she would bring forward a high quality child care system in order that there would be equality between two-parent and one-parent families. As the organisation SPARK, Single Parents Acting for the Rights of Kids, which represents single parent families has stated, the Minister compares her proposed child care system to the Swedish child care system, but the only Swedish child care system we have in place is the crèche in IKEA in Ballymun. That is all we have achieved. I put it to the Minister that she is shoring up fundamental discrimination between two-parent and one-parent families. Is that not the case? The Minister has put the cart before the horse. I presume that in the spring statement or the budget in October she will announce further developments in child care provision. Surely she is dealing with this issue the wrong way around and should not have brought forward the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill yesterday. The back to work dividend is time limited, as it will only last during the so-called recovery period.

Does the Minister agree that she is putting these 200,000 struggling one-parent families under unbearable and unnecessary stress and that after the general election the next Government will have to do something fundamental to restore what is being removed?

Tags: Job Seeker’s Transition, One-Parent Family, One-Parent Family Payment, Social Protection, Tánaiste

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE CADBURY COOLOCK JOB LOSSES

4 Mar 2015
Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian Walsh): Deputies Terence Flanagan, Broughan, Kenny and Finian McGrath will each have two minutes as well as a final minute to respond following the Minister’s remarks.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister for the briefing. What are the chances of reversing these appalling job cuts in Coolock? It is clear that there were extensive contacts between the Minister’s Department, the IDA and Enterprise Ireland and Mr. Justin Cook, managing director of Mondelēz Ireland, during the past two years. If so, why was last week’s announcement made in such a particularly shocking and cruel way? Why was more not done to stop these job losses?

Following Kraft Food’s takeover of Cadbury in 2010, Kraft Food made certain commitments. For example, we were told that the plant in Coolock was so efficient that it beat off another in Bristol to be maintained. If it was so cost effective then, why are we now grappling with this situation and being told of cost issues? Many of the other countries that are famous for producing chocolate, for example, Belgium and Switzerland, are high-cost, high-wage economies. There seems to be a gap in what the company is saying.

Our first concern is for the workers who are being made redundant, the conditions applied, whether their redundancies will be voluntary and what their pension entitlements and the entitlements of those who have retired beforehand will be. What has the Minister done to secure these entitlements?

As Deputy Terence Flanagan stated, Cadbury is an iconic name on Dublin’s north side, specifically in the five Coolock parishes and the other parishes in Kilbarrack, Donaghmede, Edenmore, Raheny and Airfield. Thousands of families have been supported by the company for many generations. Often, the key breadwinners were women. They valued Cadbury for that. Since 1964 when the Coolock facility opened, it has played a major role in our country.

The figures that the Minister provided for the number of remaining jobs do not seem to add up with what the company is saying. It refers to 700 jobs whereas the Minister seems to be saying it will be fewer than 400 at Coolock and Rathmore in County Kerry. Will the Minister clarify the figure?

Last Thursday was a sad day for Coolock. As someone who has represented the area for nearly 35 years, will the Minister revert to us with some h2 suggestions for the future of the area?

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: How much of the €11.7 million investment programme will be used to ensure the workforce in Coolock will grow in the future? Upskilling and replacement jobs are needed for those made redundant but is there a commitment to increase the number of jobs in the Coolock plant?

A number of food companies have closed in the area in recent years, including Chivers and Tayto nearby. These were iconic Irish brands and, although the Minister represents the area, he has done absolutely nothing since taking office to restore the high quality production jobs lost in Coolock. He referred to the number of jobs gained in Dublin but almost 65,000 have been lost under the Government and the previous disastrous Government. Cadbury under Donal Byrne and his successors was a h2 supporter of local development. I was the founding chairperson of Coolock Development Council and I have been a long-time director. Has the Minister finally removed the threat to the business development manager grant, the provision of which was uncertain over the past year? It has produced many jobs on the ground in the Coolock area.

Tags: Cadbury, Coolock, employment, job losses

 

Dáil speech on waiting lists for children with ASD

25 Feb 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister and Minister of State are well aware that early assessment and intervention are critical for children with ASD and other disabilities. A couple of years ago, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, told me that the Beechpark Autism Services team was getting an extra five posts to try to reduce the waiting list. Under Progressing Disability Services for Children and Young People, of which the Minister of State is also aware, 21 new posts were sanctioned for Dublin north. What is the current position on those posts? Last year, I was disappointed that the then Minister had not filled them. If they have been filled, what is the waiting list currently?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I thank the Deputy. Health-related supports and interventions for children with disabilities, including those with autism, are generally accessed, depending on the level of need, through primary care and specialist disability services. Information on waiting times for primary care and specialist disability services is not generally collected in terms of specific disabilities, such as autism. While it is recognised that there are challenges in providing children with timely access to these services in the north Dublin area and elsewhere, the Government is committed to addressing this issue through the development of primary care and specialist disability services. An additional €20 million in funding has been allocated to strengthen primary care services and to support the recruitment of more than 264 prioritised front-line posts. Forty-nine of the posts have been allocated to the north Dublin area. The HSE is also engaged in a major reorganisation of existing therapy resources into geographic-based teams for children with disability aged from birth to 18 years under the Progressing Disability Services for Children and Young People programme. The reconfiguration programme is due to be fully implemented by the end of 2015 or early 2016. This will result in a more equitable service provision for all children with a disability, including those with autism, in the localities in which they reside. It aims to achieve a national, unified approach to delivering disability health services so that there is a clear pathway to services for all children, regardless of where they live, what school they attend or the natures of their disabilities. An additional €4 million was specifically allocated in 2014 to drive the implementation of the programme. This equates to approximately 80 therapist posts, 21 of which have been allocated to support the reorganisation of services in the north Dublin area and to address waiting lists. Recruitment of these posts is still under way. A further investment of €4 million is being made to support the roll-out of the programme in 2015.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I welcome the allocations, but there is concern at the speed with which recruitment is taking place and the long, drawn out process. The Minister of State might report on this matter. Apparently, the work of the independent expert review group that the then Minister, Deputy Reilly, set up a few years ago to examine the Beechpark model of services was nearing completion last year. Has the group reported? Following an earlier Government decision, is the disability manager for the north of Dublin in place?

Early intervention and assessment are critical. It is disappointing that the Minister of State does not have data. There is a major dearth of data on the incidence of ASD in the population, as Professor Anthony Staines’s report shows. The level seems to have increased significantly in recent decades. What of our determination to identify this condition as early as possible and to help children? While I welcome the Minister of State’s point, we need more urgent recruitment and implementation. I also need data. The Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, gave me a reply—–

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The north Dublin area 9, Health Service Executive social care operational plan, which I think the Deputy is referring to, indicates that the local implementation plan is due to be completed by the end of 2015 with full reconfiguration into 12 teams in quarter one of 2016. In respect of diagnosis, those representing the people aged from birth to 18 and those with progressing disabilities tell us that it is a question of early intervention. The diagnosis may come later, provided the speech therapy and occupational therapy, the type of one to one intervention that children with autism will need, is provided. We have seen long waits for diagnosis while nothing was happening. We are trying to put the teams in place. North Dublin does not get these posts more than other areas because we like the look of the place but because we recognise there is a deficit. Recruitment is an issue for us and is taking longer than expected but there are few people qualifying in these areas. It is being worked on daily.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Would the Minister of State follow up on the new model of immediate service provision and early diagnosis? I have asked the Minister for Health to provide all the data on autism spectrum disorder, ASD, in young people, for 2013-14 and to date in 2015 and have been waiting some time for that. The Minister gave me his famous 15 working days deadline for this as he used to do when he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, but I have been waiting some time for that reply and for one or two other replies. The Minister and Minister of State might follow up on those questions.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Only at the point of diagnosis can we get the absolute data the Deputy is looking for. If we make the interventions before we make the diagnosis, the data will take a bit longer to collect. That is not to say we should not have it. I believe if we do not know where and what the need is and if we cannot absolutely put our hands on that type of data, we cannot plan properly. If we do it this way, there will be a time lag in collecting the data.

Tags: autism, waiting lists

 

Dáil Éireann speech on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015

18 Feb 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank Sinn Féin for permitting me to speak on this hugely important Bill. I h2ly support Deputies McDonald and Ellis in bringing forward this legislation and salute them for so doing. For somewhat similar reasons, approximately 17 or 18 years ago when I was chair of the general purpose committee of Dublin City Council, I tried to move forward the concept of home zones, which I had heard about in Holland, where residential estates would have a much lower speed limit than the speed limit even on local roads – perhaps of 25 km/h. I also tried to amend the 2010 Act when it was going through to try to get an additional lower speed limit.

This is a hugely important development and I welcome the fact the Minister is not opposing the Bill. I understand it will amend the Road Traffic Act 2004 by inserting a new subsection calling for the new residential speed limit to be set at 20 km/h for mechanically propelled vehicles. It also calls for the deletion of section 9(2) of the 2004 Act so, effectively, it is adding a seventh speed limit of 20 km/h in residential areas or in housing estates.

I was honoured earlier today to meet Ms Roseann Brennan and to hear from her family and friends of her h2 campaign to create some memorial following the horrendous tragedy which has befallen her family with the death of six year old Jake in Lintown Grove in Kilkenny last year by asking this House to finally take decisive action in this matter and bring in this new speed limit. As our Sinn Féin colleagues have said, it is poignant to remember the shock, grief and pain that Roseann, her partner and family have suffered, including the impact on the child’s brother in the period of time since the tragedy.

Unfortunately, Jake has not been the only young child to lose his life on roads. Residential areas and housing estates should be safe places where children can play, cycle, chase each other, play hurling, play football or whatever, as lively active children.

They are taught about road safety in schools and we, as drivers as well as pedestrians, have an important duty to protect them. Like other Deputies, yesterday I received the RSA 2014 report and updates. I am appalled to see that there has been a 24% increase in the number of casualties involving vulnerable road users. Among the 197 lives lost last year are 42 pedestrians, 13 cyclists and 14 children under the age of 15. Three times as many children under 15 died in 2014 as in 2013. This is happening on the Minister’s watch. He is the person on the bridge right now and he has the opportunity to do something decisive to address this.

During parliamentary questions relating to transport I asked the Minister to look at Vision Zero, the Swedish road safety plan, which has been operating for nearly two and a half decades and which has, through some of its initiatives, especially regarding speed limits in housing estates, decisively reduced the number of casualties, particularly among children. Vision Zero works on the principle that cars should not interact with pedestrians when they are moving at more than 18 mph. It is not feasible, as is the case in a residential estate, for a car to be doing more than 18 mph, it is a little more in kilometres. That has been their conclusion after an intensive campaign. The Dutch have also had their “home zone” proposal.

We need to see the Minister utilise the legislation in a proactive way, as Deputy Mary Lou McDonald has said, process it quickly through this House, progress it and get the city and county councils around the country to implement it in an urgent, systematic way, so that when we leave a local main road we know we are going into a housing estate, we are in with households and with children and we behave differently. That is now the Minister’s responsibility. I commend our Sinn Féin colleagues and Roseann Brennan for her incredible, indefatigable campaign to make this the law.

 

DÁIL ÉIREANN SPEECH ON THE CLIMATE ACTION AND LOW CARBON DEVELOPMENT BILL

12 Feb 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill. We have been talking about this for approximately 25 years and finally we have an opportunity to address this important issue and to put in place some specific targets to tackle climate change, which is scientifically certain and irrevocable. Whereas I welcome the concept and publication of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, it is seriously defective as it stands. There are no clear targets for carbon emissions or clear definitions in the Bill. How does the Minister, for example, expect the national expert advisory council to develop and publish annual reports when it does not have clear indications of what we are striving towards each year?

As a number of Deputies mentioned last night, there is no real provision for the concept of climate justice and addressing the impact of the developed world’s effect on the poorer countries of the planet because of carbon emissions. There is a number of lacunae in the Bill which the Minister should address on Committee and Report Stages, as he clearly feels he is beginning consultation with respect to the main sectors of the economy. The exercise could equally be seen as an effort at kicking the can down the road for another two years and for subsequent Dáileanna.

The Minister yesterday indicated that the Bill will pursue a “low carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050”. That sounds great and we have 35 years to get to that aspirational state, but how will it be done? This Bill does not have a roadmap to achieve it, so we need clearly defined carbon emission targets in order to realise an environmentally sustainable economy and the targets we have already committed to achieving at EU and international levels. The Minister has made much of those European and international targets but Ireland has a special role to play, given the levels of carbon emissions per capita are the second-highest in the developed world after the United States.

It seems that in some ways the Government is merely paying lip-service to our EU and international commitments and is more concerned about being perceived to be acting on climate change rather than placing an emphasis on the importance of properly addressing this problem for our island, our future generations, our economy and our planet. The Government has been in power for four years with no climate change action plan in place and now we are on course to exceed our EU 2020 target of reducing emissions by 20% compared with 2005 emissions.

Section 4 of the Bill, addressing the national low carbon transition and mitigation plan, looks impressive in its intention to have the first plan in place not later than 24 months after the passing of the Act. Section 5, relating to the national climate change adaptation framework, is also planned to be place within 24 months, with sectoral adaptation plans having Ministers reporting under section 6. The outline is impressive on paper but it seems the heavy lifting is being left to the next and subsequent Dáileanna.

I listened to the Minister’s speech carefully yesterday, when he repeatedly referred to “cost-effective” measures and the “need to achieve the objectives of a national mitigation plan at the least cost to the national economy”, as well as the importance of not imposing “an unreasonable burden on the Exchequer”. The Minister might also agree that fines we are potentially facing for missing our promised targets could also be seen as an unreasonable burden on the future economy. For example, approximately €90 million is the estimated cost of purchasing compliance with the non-emission trading system targets and another fine for missing our 2020 renewable energy sources target could cost the Government between €140 million and €160 million. We have already spent at least €17 million buying carbon credits. There are costs from every side. I hope this and the next Government in evaluating costs will consider the potential for cost-effective mitigation measures in investment for public transport, for example, or more sustainable agriculture. Transport, agriculture and energy represent over 70% of our carbon emissions.

We have known for a generation at least the theory behind why we need climate change legislation. We have been talking about this problem for decades but are starting to feel the real effects of global warming. Research papers produced by the Irish climate analysis and research unit at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, and Met Eireann’s study on the future of Ireland’s climate and the effects of climate change on our island highlight the significant challenges facing us. We have the prospect of warmer and drier summers on the island, with increases of 3° Celsius to 4° Celsius towards the end of the century; in one way, that sounds very nice, as we enjoyed last summer’s wonderful weather without very much rain. Nevertheless, the Government needs to lead by example. We need to highlight the negative impacts of climate change and the negative effects of drier summers for our agriculture, for example, there may be increased droughts, increasing pressure on grasslands and increasing demand for water. As citizens, we are already extremely worried about the disorganised farce that is the Government’s handling of water supplies and the failure of successive Governments to invest in local and regional water supplies.

Our winters will be wetter as world temperatures increase and weather systems become more erratic and volatile. In my own constituency of Dublin Bay North, this has already been an ongoing issues that Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council cannot seem to mitigate at current precipitation levels. We have had serious flooding problems. Part of Dublin Bay North is a polder and any significant increase in world sea levels could place greater stress on river and sea management systems and defences in our constituency. Sea levels are currently rising on average about 3.5 cm per decade around the country, and across the world we are more likely to experience intense cyclones and changes in the temperature in our sea will affect our marine ecosystems.

I accept that the Bill, while purely aspirational as it stands, is at least a starting point. The Minister deserves some credit in this respect. It has impressive intentions to “pursue, and achieve, the transition to a low carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of the year 2050”. I welcome the proposal for the establishment of the national expert advisory council on climate change but I cannot understand why the Minister would reject the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht in its report on the heads of the Bill, when it called for all the members of the advisory council to be independent. The chairperson, Deputy McCarthy, did some very good work in that respect. The Minister should reconsider the issue, as the comparison has been made with the fiscal council. We are getting used to its work in how we manage budgets. I also welcome the planned five-year national low carbon transition and mitigation plans under section 4 but it will probably be 2023 before we see the first report.

There are three major amendments needed to improve this bill and make it a useful piece of legislation rather than just a start to the discussion. Those amendments were highlighted yesterday by many Deputies, including Deputy Murphy, so I will not go over their importance again. I ask the Minister to consider them seriously when they come before us on Committee and Report Stages.

The Minister should include a definition of low carbon emissions, which was defined by the Minister’s predecessor, ensure the independence of the advisory council and highlight under climate justice our responsibility to poorer countries whose geographical positions leave them at the mercy of dangerous weather systems producing typhoons and repeated serious flooding.

Agriculture, energy and transport account for just over 70% of our domestic sector emissions, and these sectors will present the biggest challenges to reducing our carbon emissions. The joint committee heard from all relevant sectors, and its recommendations to the Minister were in no way radical but were seen to be collaborative, realistic and achievable. The Minister only adopted three of the recommendations in the report, however, none of which relates to managing the 31.9% of overall emissions from the agriculture sector. The recommendation to support rain-fed, grass-based agriculture instead of a more intensive, less sustainable form of agriculture was ignored. Indeed, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, appears to be following a traditional and less sustainable agricultural output agenda.

I mentioned earlier our responsibilities to the developing countries which have been suffering from the effects of climate change, to the causes of which they contributed little or nothing. Ireland is currently second only to the USA in carbon emissions per capita, with 12.58 tonnes per person per annum in the Republic. We are emitting carbon at levels way above the per capita levels of the UK and our other European partners. Ireland’s contribution to carbon emissions worldwide totals more than that of the poorest 400 million human beings on the planet.   The Philippines is a group of 7,000 islands, as we heard two days ago in the course of a good report given by an expert from the Philippines at a meeting organised by Deputy Catherine Murphy. It is one of the countries that is most vulnerable to the increasing incidence and growing intensity of typhoons. The worst so far struck in 2013 and left 10,000 people dead and 2 million without homes. If we do not act on climate change now, there may be worse to come. Due to migration over the past decade, with thousands of Filipino nurses and care workers coming to live and work in Ireland, many Irish people are now much more familiar with the grave concerns of the Filipino nation about climate change. We in the developed world are contributing to the onset of the erratic weather which countries such as the Philippines must endure due to our unsustainable carbon economy.

In retrospect, we have been paying lip service to climate change for too long. For much of the 1990s, I was a member of the rainbow alliance which ran Dublin City Council and which included the Green Party. I was very active in supporting climate change mitigation initiatives, especially in the promotion of cycling. Indeed, when I led the Labour Party in the city council, we initiated the first citywide cycling network. We also h2ly supported public transport initiatives, such as the Luas and metro north, and renewable energy for the city. Sadly, however, when the six Green Party Deputies propped up Bertie Ahern’s Government after 2007 and each one of them was appointed a Minister, very little was achieved on climate change. Even any version of the Bill before us failed to appear.   One of the better initiatives introduced by the former Minister, former Deputy John Gormley, however, was the carbon budget, which included some clearly defined objectives and targets. In his speech announcing the first carbon budget, which I believe was in 2008, Mr. Gormley said that it was putting “the challenge of tackling climate change at the heart of Government policy”, but beyond the aspirational carbon budget and a few small mitigation measures relating to motor tax and so forth, the Green Party in government failed to achieve any serious progress. No important legislation was introduced. Another environmental matter that the Green Party constantly spoke about was the problem of noise, but four years of that Government elapsed and another four years under this Government have passed and we still do not have a noise Bill.  No significant measures were taken to reduce our carbon emissions. Eight years later, we are set to exceed our EU 2020 targets to reduce emissions by 20% in 2020 relative to 2005 levels in our non-emissions trading scheme sectors. The failure of Mr. Gormley and the Green Party’s intentions and insight can be directly related to the fact that no legislation was enacted. In the case of the aspirational Bill before us, there will be little gain unless the Government ensures that specific, defined targets are outlined.

While the Bill is welcome, it requires serious amendment. I hope the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, will give thought to that on Committee Stage and will accept some of the amendments and, indeed, follow the recommendations of the environment committee.   The Acting Chairman, Deputy Wall, might recall that the Programme for Government 2011-2016 had a red cover, but at the Labour Party conference one of my colleagues, Councillor O’Callaghan, said that it should have been a blue cover. In the programme there was a commitment to “publish a Climate Change Bill which will provide certainty surrounding government policy and provide a clear pathway for emissions reductions”, yet this Bill does not provide any certainty to me or to the people I met who visited this House to give an excellent briefing. They were from the 28 organisations that combined to form Stop Climate Chaos and were in Buswells Hotel last Tuesday. The Bill does not answer our concerns and it does not provide a clear pathway to the sectors that need to start making changes to how they plan and operate.

Science has told us that there is a carbon budget of 245 billion tonnes of carbon left on the planet before we start to enter even more dangerous global warming territory. We are currently burning 11 billion tonnes per year, so we have two decades left, at best, before we start heading towards a four degree increase in warming. As was said by one of the speakers at Deputy Catherine Murphy’s very informative briefing earlier this week: “We are the last generation that can effectively fight climate change.” I urge the Minister to step up to the plate.   We welcome the publication of the Bill at last; it would be churlish not to. I ask the Minister to heed the recommendations of the committee, on foot of all the hard work that was done by our colleagues under the chairmanship of Deputy McCarthy, and to accept the three key amendments relating to climate justice, having a clear definition of the emissions and having clear targets. They are areas on which we should take action.

The Minister might well say, as others have said over the years, that because our economy is so small in overall terms relative to the big European economies and a continental economy such as that of the United States, our efforts are marginal. Many Deputies have made that point. However, an economy that will be performing well, one hopes, and which is also aiming to be a sustainable economy, especially in agriculture, transport and energy, is the type of economy we want our country to have. I ask the Minister to examine the theme that has run through so many speeches yesterday and today and to address those matters.

Tags: climate bill, climate change, low carbon

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON THE NEED TO ADDRESS SPIRALLING RENTS AND INTRODUCE RENT REGULATION

4 Feb 2015
Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Every weekend I meet families whose deadlines for eviction are in a few weeks or few months’ time. For some it was the end of January, now it is the end of February or the end of March, April, May and so on. Many of these families facing eviction have children some of whom are up to the late teens. Some mothers and fathers bring these children with them to my information clinics. It is sad and appalling to see the distress in the faces of these children as the family faces eviction, homelessness and grave uncertainty. Even simple tasks such as storing food or getting to school or work become a nightmare when a family is in accommodation for the homeless. In many of the cases I represent, landlords give the usual excuses of requiring a house or apartment back for a relative or for themselves. However, after the eviction, the properties are often immediately let out again for from €1,300 to €1,500 or €1,600 a month, way above Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council rent supplement rates. Increasingly, landlords simply say they want to maximise rents and that rent supplement rates are far too low.

The Minister of State is eight months in office and this is all still happening. The social housing strategy 2020 is still just aspirational talk, task forces and meetings. Rent supplement accommodation has long dried up, with rents in Dublin Bay North and other urban constituencies now soaring 30% above 2012 levels and almost back close to Celtic tiger levels. For example, for quarter three of 2014, daft.ie put rent for a three bedroom house in Dublin 3 at €1,655 a month, in Dublin 5 at €1,418 a month, in Dublin 13 at €1,352 a month and in Dublin 17 at €1,275 a month. On the Minister of State’s watch, we still have 20,000 families and citizens seeking accommodation in this city and some 89,000 seeking accommodation nationally. We have 359 homeless families and 780 children in hostel, guest house or hotel accommodation in Dublin on this day. The Minister and Minister of State are personally responsible for the suffering of these people.

It was always grossly unfair of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, to use rent supplement limits as a crude and useless form of rent regulation. In response to parliamentary questions I put today regarding rent regulation, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, said he is monitoring the rental market very closely. He also referred to the Private Rental Tenancies Board’s “Do You Know” campaign through which tenants who are anxious that rent increases in excess of market rents are being charged should contact the PRTB. What will they gain by that? This is a feeble and useless response on the part of the Ministers.

Last week, Senator Aideen Hayden held a very informative briefing on what she called the “third generation” model of rent regulation and on how rent regulation works in Europe. There, rent regulation offers security of tenure to tenant and landlord and increases, or decreases, are fair and usually linked to the consumer price index. I learned from that briefing that the report of the Constitution review group of 1996, the report of the commission on the private rented residential sector of 2000, the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution ninth report of 2004 and the DKM Economic Consultants report, Rent Stability in the Private Rented Sector 2014, which the Minister of State has on his desk, all agree that the form of rent control sanctioned by the Rent Restrictions Acts 1946-1967 was unconstitutional but that fair and proportionate rent control is not unconstitutional. I understand the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is to be amended and I believe we clearly need some form of rent regulation included in that Act. I have no problem in regard to amending the Constitution so that the rights of property are amended to ensure the kind of savage rents being imposed on vulnerable families in Dublin and other cities are unacceptable and not allowed to happen.

In countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark – most of our EU partners – rents are linked to the cost of living and all these countries have reasonably healthy rental markets. It is clear that the greedy madness which enveloped Dublin rental markets in the mid-noughties, which is again threatening our society, would not be tolerated by any of our EU partners. I urge the Minister of State and the Minister to sit down together and to bring forward serious proposals in regard to the regulation of rent in this country.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Paudie Coffey): The main cause of rising rents is a lack of supply in the market. The Deputy mentioned the social housing strategy 2020, which was published last November. This is not just a strategy.

It sets out clear, measurable actions and targets to increase the supply of social housing, reform delivery arrangements and meet the housing needs of all households on the housing list. In addition, the implementation of the range of actions under the Government’s Construction 2020 Strategy will support increased supply in the wider housing market. We will be expecting local authorities throughout the country to come forward with proposals in the coming weeks to seriously ramp up the provision of social housing.

The private rented sector is an important element of the housing market, with the proportion of households in the sector almost doubling in the period from 2006 to 2011. I am very conscious of the difficulties caused by rising rents. In the third quarter of 2014, rents were 5.6% higher nationally than in the same quarter of 2013, according to the most recent rent index from the Private Residential Tenancies Board. Rents for houses were 4.3% higher while apartment rents were 7.3% higher than in the same quarter of 2013. In Dublin, which is seeing the highest rates of increase nationally, overall rents were higher by 9.5% although the rate of annual increase was down slightly.

The Government is monitoring the rental market closely and is considering all options in order to achieve greater rent certainty, which is in the interests of tenants. The options put forward in the report, Rent Stability in the Private Rented Sector, commissioned by the PRTB and published in autumn 2014, form part of these considerations. My overriding objective is to achieve stability and sustainability in the rental market for the benefit of tenants, landlords and society as a whole. In this regard, we need to be cognisant of the possible negative impacts of rent regulation, including the impact on supply and the potential for black market transactions.

The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 regulates the landlord-tenant relationship in the private rented sector and sets out the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants relating to security of tenure, termination of tenancies, rent and rent reviews. The ongoing development of a stable, well-regulated rented sector is a key goal for the Government. The legal framework set out in the 2004 Act represented the most significant legislative reform in the private rented sector in over a century. Prior to this there was little or no security of tenure for tenants and in most tenancies the landlord had a virtually absolute right to raise the rent at any time. That is not the case at present.

The 2004 Act clearly provides that rents may not be greater than the open-market rate and may only be reviewed upwards or downwards once a year, unless there has been a substantial change in the nature of the accommodation that warrants a review. The Act also provides that a tenant must be given 28 days’ notice of new rent. These provisions have effect notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in a lease or tenancy agreement.

People under threat of eviction have rights under law with regard to their tenancies. The PRTB is undertaking a national campaign to ensure that tenants are aware of their rights and do not leave a house prematurely or at the whim of a landlord. We take this issue very seriously and I thank the Deputy for raising it in the Dáil today.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Clearly the lack of housing supply is the key problem and the total output for 2014, which included the first six months of the Minister of State’s tenure, was 11,000 units. There is talk of about 15,000 units for 2015 which is not even half good enough. The Minister of State has now at his disposal €300 million from the EIB and the Government, and he has established a working group with the nine major voluntary housing agencies and the local authorities.

However, we want no more talk. Let us have some action because nothing is happening. There have been endless meetings. In my area, Dublin Bay North, which represents about a quarter of Dublin city, we have seen nothing. There has been nothing so far in the north fringe. There may be ten or 20 houses and 40 apartments coming forward in an area which has 5,000 families on the housing list. That is the nub of the problem.

Last week the Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Honohan, published the new mortgage rules. Did the Minister of State or his Department have any input into those rules because many observers feel that one of the net effects will be to price many young families out of buying their own homes in urban areas and thereby further increase the demand for rental property? Up to 40% of homes in the Dublin area are now rented.

On 25 January, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive stated that 359 families with a total of 780 dependent children were in emergency accommodation. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, always seems to be very interested in his legacy. His legacy at the moment is that during his period of Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government one family in this city became homeless every day.

It seems clear from the constitutional advice – the advice of lawyers at the well-attended briefing organised by Senator Hayden – that there is no constitutional impediment to us introducing serious real rent regulation, as opposed to the timid efforts of Fianna Fáil in 2004, to give us a modern rented sector as exists in Germany and many of other European states. We want action now – no more talk.

Deputy Paudie Coffey: With due respect, this is the first social housing strategy in a generation. I commend the Government and in particular the Minister, Deputy Kelly, on the work they have done in ring-fencing significant funds. This is a significant commitment by Government to address the social housing deficit. The Deputy should at least make some acknowledgement of those efforts. To say on the floor of the House that nothing is being done is far from the truth; quite an amount is being done.

 

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The Minister of State should come out to my constituency.

 

Deputy Paudie Coffey: The strategy has been put in place. The funding has been provided.

 

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: There are queues of homeless people.

 

Deputy Paudie Coffey: The Government has reiterated its commitment.

 

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: We will visit the homeless families in the hotels and guesthouses.

 

Deputy Paudie Coffey: We are now engaged with local authorities, approved housing bodies and every other stakeholder that can contribute to offering solutions to the huge social housing deficit. We will deliver on that because the next phase of that implementation is about to be rolled out in coming weeks. The Deputy will see in his constituency as in other constituencies, the start of that delivery.

This year alone, the social housing strategy will provide more than 7,000 social housing units and a further 8,500 units will be secured under the HAP scheme. The total housing provision will result in an investment of almost €800 million across a range of housing programmes. So the Deputy should acknowledge that there is a lot of action.

As I mentioned earlier, a recent PRTB poll found that only 64% of tenants are aware of their rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Having regard to these findings the PRTB is developing a national communications strategy to ensure that tenants are aware of their rights and are not being removed from their homes, as the Deputy says, at the whim of a landlord. We will monitor the rental situation closely and will take action where we feel it appropriate.

Tags: families, homeless, housing, rent regulation, social housing

 

DÁIL SPEECH ON ROAD TRAFFIC NO.2 BILL

18 Dec 2014
Probably like other Deputies, before considering the Bill, I examined the latest horrendous death and casualty figures on the roads, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring, may have referred. I understand the figure currently stands at 188 deaths in 2014 – the comparable figure this time last year was 181 – with 40 pedestrians and 11 cyclists having been killed. These are really shocking statistics because if there was a disaster involving air or rail transport in which 188 people died, the House would be talking about it for weeks. A public inquiry would be held and major action taken, yet, year in and year out, unfortunately, it appears to be acceptable to have these numbers of casualties. Moreover, it must be stated that, on the Minister’s watch and that of his predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, the position has deteriorated in respect of the number of casualties. In tandem with the new chairperson of the Road Safety Authority, former Deputy Liz O’Donnell, and its new chief executive, Members must try to reduce seriously these numbers because they are simply horrendous. Again, in a point to which I will refer, one should think of the terrible effects on the families and friends of each one of those 188 people, as well as on those others who were seriously injured. This is a point to bear in mind when considering the Bill and I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

In a way, this debate should not be happening and it should not have been necessary to have it because Members effectively are meeting in emergency session to correct lacunae in road traffic law. The legislation should have been right from the outset and the Minister has a responsibility to the House for that fact. He is directly responsible to Members in being obliged to correct these two matters today. Moreover, his predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and the former Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, also bear a heavy responsibility for the necessity to bring forward this legislation. That said, Members are now in this position and I support the Bill because it offers important protection for road users. As I understand it, it addresses two loopholes in road traffic legislation as it relates to the penalty points system. The first concerns the validity of penalty points for the offences of using a vehicle without a valid NCT and parking in a dangerous position. I note that the Minister’s intention in section 2 is to correct references in road traffic legislation about the applicability and endorsement of penalty points for these offences.

As far as I understand it, the Bill also seeks to ensure that those offences which are now fixed charge offences are deleted from a list of exemptions of offences upon which driving licences would be endorsed with penalty points upon payment of a fixed charge. As I understand it, section 2(1) of the 2002 Act will be amended, in effect to delete references to the two above offences, as being exempted.

The first gap we are correcting relates to two very important offences. The recent flurry of people applying for NCT appointments appears to highlight that. I have some sympathy for the cases outlined by Deputies Mulherin and Penrose in terms of how the test operates in their areas. In the case of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe and I, we have the Ballymun facility which operates in an efficient way. People have said, for example, that they wold like to have their NCT before the three-month period. Deputy Penrose is correct that if one has made a genuine attempt to get one’s NCT it should be proof that one is trying to have the test carried out. That is an area the Minister could seriously examine to see how we could make it more efficient, in particular in terms of allowing people to have an early NCT.

Parking in a dangerous space is another issue. Any of us who were councillors prior to becoming Deputies recall that such an issue came up a lot, for example, outside supermarkets and schools. It is important the issue is remedied.

The second loophole relates to correcting the effect of section 8(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 2014 because this amended section 2(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 and made reference to sections 37 and 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 in substitution for section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, but because the sections of the 2010 Act have not yet been commenced the endorsement of penalty points upon payment of a fixed charge would not be valid.

Again, I welcome the legislation in correcting the loopholes but I must reiterate my h2 concerns because we should not have to be in the Chamber again to correct the legislation. I understand the loopholes came to light during a High Court challenge by a motorist who had received a number of penalty points and when an inquiry was made about the endorsement of the penalty points by the motorist’s solicitor, it transpired that the legislation was defective or infirm.

I note that the second loophole which the Minister seeks to address in the Bill specifically refers to section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. As the Minister is well aware, I have called for the enactment of section 44, which provides for the so-called third payment option. I made such calls a number of times in the media. Under this mechanism, a person who is served with a summons for a fixed charge offence will have a final opportunity to pay a fixed charge, of an amount 100% greater than the original penalty, not later than seven days before the court date on which the charge is to be heard.

As the Minister is also aware, the PARC Road Safety Group, brilliantly led by that great citizen and road safety activist, Ms Susan Gray from Donegal, has consistently campaigned for the enactment of section 44. I understand PARC raised the matter with the Minister. I also understand the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, met with members of PARC in June of this year and committed to enacting section 44. I am informed that making section 44 operational requires the allocation of resources to an Garda Síochána to update its IT systems to recognise the creation of a new structure in the penalty points system. I was told that at one of the Minister’s meetings with PARC in September that it was said to the multi-stakeholder group under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality that €6 million would be provided to update the Garda IT systems. That has been sought for many months. The courts also needed to update their systems. I understand they were quicker off the blocks in doing that, but some issues still arise in terms of the Garda system. If the necessary resources are available the Minister must ensure they are drawn down. That should allow for the system to be updated. However, it appears there are further delays in making the necessary changes. I would like the Minister to explain the reasons for the delay in the enactment of section 44 in his response. Mr. Bob Olson, of the Garda Inspectorate carried out a major report for the Government on fixed charge processing and he highlighted section 44 as one of the elements the Minister must address.

I am often asked why fixed charge notices are not delivered by registered post. Deputy Penrose outlined brilliantly the reason we need plainly written legislation steeped in common sense. Instead of the rigmarole in court, if one commits the offence, one should take the points and improve one’s driving. That is the whole idea of penalty points. Why can we not have registered post in order that there would be no question over the delivery of fixed charge notices? It seems bizarre that such an approach was not taken.

As our barrister colleague, Deputy Penrose, said, the problems with the road traffic legislation, which the Minister is now attempting to rectify, highlight the need for a consolidated road traffic Act. I think the Minister referred to that in his introductory remarks for which I was unable to be present. Everyone knows the legislation on road traffic is complex. On many occasions in recent decades, because of the complexity of road traffic legislation, it has been shown to be easily open to challenge by an intelligent solicitor in a court. That is also a factor in the ongoing unacceptable level of bad driving and ultimately deaths and casualties on Irish roads. On numerous occasions in the Dáil, including during my time as transport spokesperson for the Labour Party for a number of years, I called for the consolidation of road traffic legislation. The current situation whereby there is a large number of Road Traffic Acts, dating back to 1961 according to supplementary information provided by the Minister, makes matters too complicated and messy. It makes it very difficult for us as legislators and policy makers for the future, for practitioners in the courts and for ordinary citizens to understand.

I wish to commend the Minister on one initiative since he has taken up this portfolio, namely, a proposal which I also advocated for many years, including during my time on Dublin City Council and as transport spokesperson in this House. The previous Deputy referred to people being outside the Pale. I am one of those who, like him, comes from a county council cottage, but we also had cattle. I am a country Dubliner. Deputy Dowds knows the area very well as he represents my native land. I can see both sides of the equation. A long speech was made last night about setting cities against country areas. To me, that is pointless politics. We are all people regardless of where we live. Someone such as I who had a rural background but lives in an urban area represents everybody. It is a fundamental thesis of social democracy and socialism that no matter where one lives, one should get exactly the same level of service. That is why I do not begrudge a cent to Westport United in any way. I know quite well that brilliant town in the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Ring.

Deputy Michael Ring: I thank Deputy Broughan very much. I knew he was a soccer man.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Yes, exactly. One initiative which the Minister has introduced is to have a special speed limit in estates in urban settings. When I pursued the matter 15 years ago as leader of the rainbow civic alliance in Dublin City Council – the Labour Party was in a fortunate position in that it was the biggest party and Fine Gael was the smaller party – we called them home zones. The system was based on a Dutch model and the premise was that when one went into an urban estate, one dropped one’s speed. At the time we aimed at 25 mph but the Minister is opting for 25 km/h. I agree with that also. It is a very useful initiative. We brought it forward but we floundered with the lack of activity and the lethargic approach of the then Department of the Environment, and later the Department of Transport. We could not get the measure through. I think of estates in my constituency in areas such as Marino, Donnycarney, Edenmore, Clonshaugh, Newbury and other places in Dublin Bay North, where one goes in off the main street and one is then in a residential area with seniors, children and families walking around doing their business and one must slow down immediately. I would like to see more signage on roads, not written on small signs, giving the home zone speed limit. That would be a very useful contribution to the protection of life for urban Ireland if the Minister were to introduce it, given the number of pedestrians involved. It could apply in all towns. I wish the Minister well in that regard. I hope it happens.

I presume the Minister will do that as part of a future road traffic Bill. I am not sure whether the Minister can do it unilaterally, by regulation. If so, I look forward to that.

On the general issue of road traffic legislation, I refer to a series of four articles, to which, perhaps, other Members referred, written by The Irish Times journalist Peter Murtagh, entitled “Anatomy of a Car Crash”. The articles refer to a terrible crash that happened on the very first day of 2014. In an outstanding piece of journalism, Mr. Murtagh analyses all aspects of that disaster, which resulted in the deaths of two men and horrendous sadness for their families and all of their friends. By the way, he refers to this as “the ripple effect” on the close-knit communities around the two deceased. It brings home vividly the disaster of one terrible crash and two communities ripped apart. In his articles, Mr. Murtagh goes down through the different elements of it. For instance, he covers the inquest, which occurred in October. When reading it, I was reminded that, as marine spokesman for the Labour Party for many years, I was one of those who campaigned for the provision of marine safety reports on disasters at sea when someone is lost or suffers serious injury. We used get the hard copy, but now the Minister e-mails the report of each incident to us. The Murtagh articles made me think it would be interesting to receive a full report on every crash in which somebody is killed or seriously injured. Obviously, it would entail major resources, but it would be important. It is something worth thinking about, to bring it home to us. One hundred and eighty-eight is merely a number. If the deceased had died together, there would have been a public inquiry, a major report or something similar. It is something on which the Minister might reflect to see if there is some way we could go forward in treating every one of those deaths as a major disaster, which it is for the country and for the citizenry as well as for the close connections.

As I stated, I am supportive of the Bill. Texting while driving was dealt with in the Road Traffic Act 2006 (Restriction on Use of Mobile Phones) Regulations 2014, which created the offence of accessing data on a mobile telephone while driving or texting while driving. I asked the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, for data on texting, but she could not provide it. It is still upsetting for all of us who drive safely on the motorway anywhere around the country or in the city to see somebody talking away on their mobile telephone and, perhaps, driving erratically. In reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated that the Courts Service indicated that the relevant IT systems were updated with a new offence code on 7 December 2014 and, consistent with normal recording procedure, it will be a number of months before any meaningful data can be provided. That is something of interest to citizens, who also recognise that mobile phone use and texting are important problems.

I note the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, indicated that he will take action on drug testing. I used talk constantly to his predecessor about the possibility of introducing the systems they have in places such as Victoria and New South Wales in Australia to identify drug usage, because that has been a factor in so many crashes, and the reply was always that there is no adequate testing, except for the initial legislation that the Government brought in recently.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about the supply of data from the National Vehicle and Driver File, NVDF, which is another important element of creating a regime. In a parliamentary reply, he told me that the system would start on Wednesday, 17 December, with one insurance company. This relates to drivers who have a bad track record, have not been behaving properly and have not brought their driving to a much better standard. This will be on such a driver’s record for insurance purposes. It is another safeguard for the driving public.

I welcome the Bill. It is unfortunate that we must do this. Although the Government may not have that long to go, the Minister might take a stab at least at putting in place some sort of process of consolidating road traffic legislation. As Deputy Penrose stated eloquently, that would be something we could all understand and adhere to. As I stated, I welcome the home zones. Perhaps the Minister would also take a look at the reporting system for terrible crashes.

 

DAIL SPEECH ON GARDA SÍOCHÁNA (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) Bill 2014

28 Nov 2014
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I note that it is part of the Government’s and the Minister for Justice and Equality’s pledged reform of policing and the overhaul of the legislative framework for An Garda Síochána. These promised reforms arise out of the plethora of reports and controversies over the past year with the Cooke, Guerin and Garda Inspectorate reports.

I have always been h2ly of the view that An Garda Síochána should be managed by an independent Garda or policing authority as is the case in so many other jurisdictions. Of course this was the policy of the Labour Party for many years. It was perhaps most cogently expressed in a policy document by the present Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to establish the policing authority and her promise to publish the necessary legislation for the new authority in the coming months. I have been a long-time supporter of community policing. I helped organise Garda and community meetings for many years before the existing joint policing committees, JPCs, were established. The gardaí in our Dublin Metropolitan division in the north-central area of Dublin city were always very supportive of those meetings, even before the legislation existed.

I spoke in this House earlier this year when Members discussed serious allegations raised about An Garda Síochána from claims made by whistleblowers, including Sergeant Maurice McCabe. At that time, I said that I agreed with the sentiments of former Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Nuala O’Loan, about the deficiencies in the current structure and powers of GSOC as compared to the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman. Baroness O’Loan had said specifically that there were three issues which would preclude her from ever taking up the role of Garda Ombudsman: the lack of powers of GSOC to investigate the performance of a Garda Commissioner; the lack of power GSOC has to access all of the information, through police using leading systems effectively, PULSE, etc. that it requires from An Garda Síochána to carry out its investigations; and the fact that serving gardaí are working inside GSOC in a liaison capacity. Only one of these fundamental issues, the extension of GSOC’s powers to investigate the Garda Commissioner, is addressed in the Bill. Some people have raised concerns about the provisions of section 7 and how it will operate.

I welcome the provisions contained in the Garda Síochána Amendment (No. 3) Bill 2014 and note it is part of a wider reform of policing in this country. However, it appears the Bill does not go far enough in addressing identified deficiencies with the operation of GSOC and the powers afforded to it. The Bill lacks clarity in some of its primary provisions, particularly in relation to when the time limit for making complaints actually kicks in and the lack of express timeframes for the Garda Síochána to be required to send necessary information to GSOC in order for GSOC to carry out its investigations. Those matters need to be considered more closely. The Bill is silent on some of the identified necessary reforms such as taking the Garda Síochána completely out of GSOC to ensure full impartiality and independence. One of the core principles of natural justice is nemo iudex in causa sua, no one should be a judge in his own case.

I served as a spokesperson in various areas during the years. I held various portfolios, including communications and transport. I am aware that the existing staff members of a telecommunications company would not be embedded in the Commission for Communications Regulation in some way. Similarly, existing staff members of an energy company would not be embedded in the Commission for Energy Regulation. Such a lacuna will continue in this area after this legislation has been enacted. People who are being regulated should not be working within the office of the regulator. As long as we continue to allow members of the Garda to be involved in any capacity in the investigatory functions of GSOC, we will not be true to the core principle of natural justice. This issue should be specifically addressed in the Bill before the House.

While I welcome the extension of GSOC’s remit to include investigations concerning the Garda Commissioner, I share the concerns expressed by some stakeholders and experts, including Professor Dermot Walsh, about the apparent veto the Minister for Justice and Equality will have in any proposed investigation by GSOC regarding the Garda Commissioner. I also welcome the inclusion of a new power for GSOC to carry out investigations on its own initiative, which is very important. I note that the Office of the Ombudsman for Children has always had the power to carry out investigations on its own initiative under section 7 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002.

I welcome the strengthened powers of surveillance that are to be afforded to designated officers of GSOC to investigate complaints, particularly about alleged criminal behaviour. I note that some concern has been expressed about the extension of surveillance powers to GSOC, specifically the possibility that this could interfere with ongoing criminal investigations by An Garda Síochána. There is a mechanism in place for surveillance applications to be invigilated by the Judiciary under section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009. Other specific procedures for surveillance in urgent cases are provided for in section 7 of the Act. These provisions should afford the necessary safeguards for any surveillance application made by designated officers of GSOC under the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009, as amended by this Bill.

My concerns about the Bill and the existing GSOC legislative framework are based on my experience of constituents interacting with the GSOC and briefings I have received from the PARC road safety group which has extensive experience in supporting families who have made complaints to GSOC about traffic collisions. It has repeatedly come to my attention that the existing six month time limit for initiating complaints is too short. It has precluded some potential complainants from being afforded an opportunity to make a complaint to GSOC. In that context, I welcome section 4 of the Bill which amends section 84 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 by increasing the permissible time limit for making complaints to GSOC from six months to 12, while retaining the ability of GSOC to extend the time limit if there are good reasons for doing so. The existing section 84(1) of the 2005 Act provides that “a complaint must be made within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the conduct giving rise to the complaint or within any extension of that period allowed under subsection (2)”. I believe there is a lack of clarity about the beginning of the time limit. Does it begin on the date on which the incident giving rise to the complaint occurred, or does it begin on the date on which the complainant became aware of the conduct giving rise to the complaint? I recognise that this is a somewhat technical issue. The lack of clarity about when the time limit kicks in has been prohibitive for some complainants, particularly those who have gone through traumatic experiences and find the GSOC complaints system difficult to navigate.

Another issue that has been raised with me but which is not addressed in the Bill relates to any discipline or sanctions that may be imposed when a complaint about a member of An Garda Síochána is accepted and upheld by GSOC. As far as I am aware, there is no obligation on An Garda Síochána to inform GSOC or the complainants about the disciplinary sanctions imposed on a member who has been found by GSOC to have been involved in misbehaviour. This could and should be addressed in the legislation before the House. Perhaps the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, might consider amending the Bill to bring more clarity and transparency to it and ensure complainants will have an idea of how satisfactorily their complaints have been addressed.

I refer to the express provision in section 9 of the Bill that inserts a new section after section 103 in the 2005 Act, requiring An Garda Síochána to supply information necessary to carry out investigations to GSOC as soon as practicable. I acknowledge the express inclusion of this requirement in the Bill. I appreciate that the tardy exchange of information between the Garda and GSOC has rightly been a point of contention and is now the subject of revised protocols. Many other Deputies have made that point in the House. The provision in the Bill relating to the exchange of information could be much more robust. It should include specific timeframes during which the Garda would be compelled to supply information requested by GSOC which has been deemed necessary for investigations.

A related concern in the area of access to information is the lack of an express provision in the Bill for designated officers of GSOC to have access to the PULSE system. In its report on the review of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality recommended that access by GSOC to PULSE should be placed on a statutory footing, not by way of protocols. This recommendation was made by a dedicated committee of the House in a report that further states “the access to Garda systems is of integral importance to the operation of effective oversight of An Garda Síochána”. The Minister’s stated aim in introducing the Bill and reforming the 2005 Act is to improve confidence in policing and strengthen the powers of GSOC. I suggest GSOC will not be in a position to adequately carry out some investigations without being permitted to access PULSE.

How and by whom will the activities of GSOC be invigilated? I note that Vicky Conway who has written extensively on policing matters has suggested it is unclear how the public will complain about GSOC’s performance or use of its powers. In other words, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians? We often use this famous phrase in reference to An Garda Síochána, but who will make sure GSOC is doing its job? I assume there will be some oversight by the new policing authority. Perhaps the Minister might clarify this matter for us when she replies at the end of the debate.

I welcome this legislation as a first small step towards bringing about necessary reforms to policing in Ireland and the oversight of An Garda Síochána. As I have pointed out, a number of outstanding issues need to be addressed, particularly with regard to the information which can be accessed by GSOC designated officers and the timeframes in which information must be provided for GSOC by An Garda Síochána. Serving gardaí should not be working in GSOC in any capacity, as this completely undermines the independence of the GSOC organisation. I hope some of the other issues I have raised that merit further clarity in this legislation such as the question of when the time limit for making a complaint will kick in will be addressed on Committee Stage or in the further promised legislation the Minister plans to introduce.

Many Deputies read the recent Garda Inspectorate report very carefully. I raised the issue, too. I note that a former follow member of one of the local policing committees in my constituency is present in the Chamber for this debate. He shares my interest in how Garda statistics, particularly crime statistics, are collated and presented to us and the public. There are some concerns in this regard. I have been assured by the chief superintendent in our region, Mr. Frank Clerkin, that An Garda Síochána can stand over the statistics we are presented with on a bimonthly or trimonthly basis. I believe that to be the case. The Garda Inspectorate report was disturbing. I hope the Minister will respond to it and agree to debate it in the House.

 

BROUGHAN’S DAIL SPEECH ON IRISH WATER AND WATER CHARGES

24 Nov 2014
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his kindness in giving me speaking time.

About a year ago, I was one of the Deputies who voted against the establishment of Irish Water. I foresaw that Irish Water would be a disaster and turn out to be the toxic brand it was described as last night. That is precisely what happened. Water taxes or charges are a step too far for constituents who have suffered so badly from health, education, social welfare benefit and other cuts since 2008 and the onerous and bullying imposition of the household property tax. At weekend information clinics, as I am sure other Members experience, people show me their weekly or fortnightly payslips with major deductions for PAYE, PRSI, USC, pension contributions, the weekly or fortnightly property tax payment and, now, the new water tax. A few months ago, I put it to the Taoiseach that this vital question, which is exercising people so much, should be put to people in a general election. We should have an immediate general election and let the people decide. Their views have not been listened to and I reiterate my call for that.

In the 1980s and the 1990s, as the political leader of the Labour Party on Dublin City Council, I fiercely opposed water taxes. In that era, my neighbours in the Coolock-Artane and Raheny-Kilbarrack wards, which I represented in turn, were suffering deeply from the vicious and cruel cuts of the Haughey and Reynolds Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Governments. As now, we had massive emigration and suffering of our people. We had the wealth and resources in the country to upgrade significantly our national infrastructure in health, education, transport and water and drainage services. We still have it today.

As chairperson of the general purposes committee of Dublin City Council through the 1990s, despite the ferocious contempt of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties for this city and area, we managed to upgrade significantly the water services of the four Dublin local authority areas and the surrounding counties. In 2012, when the former Minister, Phil Hogan, made his disastrous decision to pursue Irish Water, we were producing 1.6 billion litres of water daily to a very high standard – 99% pure. This is not what the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, told us last night or the constant mantra of the Taoiseach.

Irish Water was always a bad idea and badly thought out and executed. We heard something about its parents this morning. If it was a film or theatre production, it would be a Fianna Fáil production, whose Members are not in the Chamber, with Fine Gael direction and a Labour Party fall guy. It will be a tragedy for that party, just as it was before, and the party will be written out of the script like the Green Party. Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, had an opportunity to remove the toxicity of Irish Water and its taxes from the backs of the Irish people and from his unfortunate colleagues in the Labour Parliamentary Party. He could simply have come into the House, apologised at length for the madcap error-strewn history of Irish Water and the great distress it has caused our hard-pressed citizens and then simply announced the abolition of Irish Water and its hateful water taxes. Sadly, the Minister refused to take the opportunity yesterday and persisted with the morass of Irish Water. Irish Water is a bad idea because it was created as part of Bord Gáis Éireann, one of the least efficient, costly and most remote semi-State companies. Most Members have had that experience of Bord Gáis. It was also a bad idea because it included vast local drainage networks along with local water systems in a new huge and unwieldy quango. Why would we have every single street in urban Ireland, every townland and every pipeline under one organisation? It is not like electricity or gas, it is a more complex double system.

More importantly, the financial numbers for Irish Water simply do not add up. It was disappointing the Minister did not give us those numbers in the House. Members had to go back to their laptops and telephones to find the figures on a Twitter account. The numbers do not add up and the vast bulk of funding for Irish Water will come from the Exchequer, as it should and as is appropriate.

There is only one settlement and one solution for Irish Water. The Minister should stop spending money on useless, unnecessary and expensive meters and abolish the company and its egregious taxes, return the water services function to our much less expensive and, for all their faults, more efficient local authorities, perhaps operating on a regional basis. After the general election, this will be the solution. The Minister might as well do it now before his party is devastated.

 

DAIL SPEECH ON FINANCE BILL 2014

6 Nov 2014
I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution on the Finance Bill 2014. The Bill implements the majority of the taxation changes announced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in his Budget Statement of 14 October. Today, Deputy Eoghan Murphy suggested a change in approach in how budgets were invigilated by this Parliament and spoke about the need for a h2er Parliament overall. His comments in this regard are reflective of the views I have long expressed in the House, on approximately 24 Finance Bills. This is the 24th time I have been asked to invigilate the debate on the Finance Bill.

I hope we will begin to receive more detailed budgetary information earlier in the year. Perhaps we might use the approach adopted by the Australian and Dutch Parliaments in order that Deputies can make an informed contribution to the debates on both the budget and the Finance Bill. While the Minister did provide outline costings for the new measures contained in budget 2015 which are instructive, there is still a disappointing and frustrating dearth of information on the macro position in regard to costings for many tax expenditures in this and earlier Bills.

Tax breaks have always played a prominent role in the Irish taxation system and the history of the State. For many years, colleagues in this House and I have demanded that tax expenditures be regarded simply as Government spending programmes and not effectively as a series of measures which are revenue neutral. Many studies, in particular the work of TASC by O’Connor, Staunton, Sweeney and O’Donnell in recent times, have shown that the costs and benefits of tax breaks are not uniform in their application across the people and households. The ESRI has noted, for example, that 80% of the benefit of pension tax reliefs goes to the top two deciles of income.

Tax expenditures are often anti-competitive, deadweight and less efficient than direct State spending. Most of all, the cost of tax breaks is difficult to determine and usually underestimated, even in the annual budget documents such as those presented with budget 2014. Nowhere in the budget papers and speeches of the past four years of the Government, for example, is there a full estimate of the current level of tax expenditures in this era of savage cutbacks and retrenchment. Right-wing journalists love to write about the budget revenue gap in regard to social programmes and public spending without ever mentioning the cumulative tax expenditures throughout each budget.

The OECD’s 2009 economic survey of Ireland put the average EU level of tax breaks in the income tax system at 5.6% of total taxation, whereas the Irish level was placed at 18.3%, or three times greater, of total taxation. In addition, the benefits of many tax breaks accrue to the highest earners and these expenditures continue to provide a way whereby many high earners can dodge paying their appropriate share of income tax. The recent TASC report, A Defence of Taxation, refers to Revenue statistics from 2007 and 2010 which show that the total cost of tax breaks on income tax was €17.9 billion in 2007 and €17.7 billion in 2010. When one deducts the basic income tax credits for workers and employers which amounted to €8.9 billion in 2007 and €8 billion in 2010, we are left with tax breaks of €9 billion in 2007 and €9.6 billion in 2010, significantly more than the whole education budget.

Perhaps in his reply to the debate, the Minister might update us on the total cost of tax reliefs in 2013 and 2014 and the projected total costs of same in 2015. I note the Australian Treasury produces an annual tax expenditures statement which I presume includes a full cost-benefit analysis of each tax break. That is the type of issue Deputy Eoghan Murphy was rightly commending to the House. We should know what we spend on these tax reliefs and tax breaks which, as I said, by and large, benefit the more wealthy in society.

I note that there are again hugely significant tax expenditures in the agriculture sector in sections 43 and 44 of Chapter 6 of the Bill. These were estimated to cost at least €30 million in the Minister’s Budget Statement. While these measures are said to be derived from the review of the Departments of Finance and Agriculture, Food and the Marine, they are still presented to Deputies in a very narrow manner, without guidelines on how the changes will affect the overall macro tax treatment of the sector. I also recall that last year the Ministers, Deputies Michael Noonan and Simon Coveney, overruled their departmental officials to introduce a €26 million tax break for inactive farmers.

The decision in section 27 to slash the 80% rate of income tax on windfall profits owing to certain planning decisions in regard to land is also not costed. The excuse given by the Ministers, Deputies Brendan Howlin and Michael Noonan, is that there had been absolutely no activity under the provisions of the principal Act, now amended by section 27. However, given that there were more homes built in 2009 alone than in the entire period since, it is no wonder the section did not come into use. Perhaps the developers were waiting for the Ministers to cut the windfall tax down to the capital gains tax rate of 33%. While the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, has said there will not be a return to the boom and bust policies of the past, the windfall tax provision was an important measure in actually addressing past boom and bust policies which got us into the mess of the economic crash. I note that Deputy Mick Wallace, for example, has made valuable contributions in debates in this House on his experience of how land is ruthlessly hoarded by developers and landowners and land banks could best be used to provide desperately needed housing and commercial and public infrastructure.

I note the Minister’s fanfare about removing the double Irish which he clearly states has caused Ireland reputational damage. Deputy Michael Noonan has been Minister for Finance for four years and did not seem to believe there was any reputational damage throughout that period, although he does now. I read a report in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal which effectively stated the extension of research and development tax credits in section 23 and the changes to the capital allowances in section 35 would effectively create bigger loopholes in the tax system, thereby benefiting the same multinationals. Clearly, Dáil Éireann needs much more information on how a research and development or patent box tax expenditure will operate and what it will cost. In this instance, we can also observe how Mr. Cameron’s similar patent box operates in the United Kingdom.

I made a submission to both the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, and the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, in the run-up to budget 2015. Of course, the level of resources afforded to Independent Deputies makes it very difficult for us. I was sorry that I could only deliver my 20 page submission to the two Ministers four or five days before the budget. I note that some of the measures I proposed are actually contained in the budget and the Bill. However, would the Minister believe some of the measures I proposed to tackle high earners are noticeably absent? One of my principal recommendations was ending all cuts to public services. I welcome the decision by the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to finally stall the horrendous cuts across the major Departments of Social Protection, Health and Education and Skills. I also proposed a €5 a week increase in all social welfare benefits, including pensions.

One of the key measures which I welcome in the Bill is in Chapter 2 in regard to changes to the universal social charge. In my submission I recommended increasing the entry point at which a worker was liable for USC and also a cut to the middle rate of the charge. Therefore, I welcome the amendment of the threshold and recognise that this will be beneficial for workers on very low incomes. I also welcome the cuts to the lower rates of USC. They will assist all workers but will have particular benefits for those on lower incomes. I also note the inclusion of higher rates of USC for higher earners. However, these progressive changes are offset by the decision by the Ministers to cut the marginal rate of income tax by 1%, as contained in section 3 of the Bill. The Government’s decision to cut the rate is regressive because it benefits higher earners most. Coupled with the increase in the threshold at which the marginal rate of income tax will be paid, also in section 3, this means that higher earners will benefit disproportionately from budget 2015. A much fairer approach would have been to increase the income tax credits available to all workers. I proposed in my submission increasing tax credits by €5 per week, at a cost of €332 million. I also proposed adding a third rate of income tax of 48% on incomes above €100,000 which, again, would be an equitable measure ensuring those who could most afford to contribute to the recovery of the nation would have the opportunity to do so.

I also renewed my call for solidarity taxes on wealth and an increase in the bank levy. I note that Deputy Peter Mathews has done some very thoughtful work and made thoughtful contributions on the way in which the financial services industry can, if one likes, pay reparations to the nation for the damage it did to us in the past six years and the suffering it has caused to the people.

In regard to Part 3, sections 58 to 63, inclusive, in preparing my submission I h2ly considered a cut in VAT of at least 1%. I can understand the difficulties the officials have in trying to balance a budget, given the huge amount of funding that comes in through VAT. Clearly, however, consumption taxes, including VAT, excise and custom taxes, are extremely regressive. Citizens and families on low incomes pay a much higher portion of their income in VAT and other consumption taxes. I believe that, following the next general election, the group of Independents will have a very h2 influence on the next Government and perhaps might even lead it. We will then have an opportunity to begin to address the great unfairness of VAT and other consumption taxes.

Earlier today I attended a meeting organised by Deputy Peadar Tóibín and our trade union colleagues to consider the very necessary changes to the relevant contracts tax, RCT, system, which is dealt with in section 15 of the Bill. As the Minister knows, in recent months I have raised issues with the RCT system and the manner in which it relates to construction workers. There is a situation where PAYE workers on State school contracts are being turned into subcontractors against their will and paid salaries below the minimum wage. It is an horrendous state of affairs. I hope to bring forward an amendment on the next Stage of the Finance Bill in conjunction with colleagues. Either something is wrong with the current RCT system rules or they are not being implemented by Revenue. Either way, we need some new ideas.

I note that in my Finance Bill papers I have a very nice “Dear Wolfgang” letter, submitted by the Minister for Finance. I wonder why he did not say “Dear Wolfgang and Sigmar,” given that there is a sort of Noonan and Howlin outfit in Germany. Of course, Wolfgang visited his more or less Dublin Branch Office last week. I wonder why we did not receive a “Dear Michael” letter in return. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, might raise that matter with the Minister as we have received only one side of the correspondence.

 

DAIL SPEECH FROM DEBATE ON OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL FOR NORTH DUBLIN

24 Oct 2014
The urgent need for the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government to report to Dáil Éireann on his Department’s programme and targets in relation to the future strategic infrastructure required for Dublin City and Fingal County and whether this programme includes provision for a large 10km oil pipeline through residential districts given the vast expenditure incurred by his Department on the Dublin Port Tunnel.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: Many constituents in Dublin Bay North were astonished recently to learn of a proposal by Fingleton White & Co. Ltd. and the Independent Pipeline Co. Ltd. for a 16 km aviation fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport. The kerosene pipeline route is proposed to pass along the Malahide Road through a densely populated residential region, including East Wall, Fairview, Marino, Clontarf, Donnycarney, Artane, Coolock, Darndale, Ayrfield, Clare Hall and Burnell, along the R139 – the former N32 – and the M1 and up to the airport. The proposal is a major change of route from the 2001 Fingleton White oil pipeline plan of 11.1 km which was to run from the port up East Wall Road, through Ballybough onto Richmond Road and up through Drumcondra and Gracepark Road onto Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road through Whitehall to the airport.

I note the grave concerns and consternation of residents from East Wall, Drumcondra and Whitehall during the planning process on this earlier An Bord Pleanála approved plan, PL 29N. 122692. The same concerns are now shared by my Dublin Bay North constituents.

I understand that no revised version of the 2001 plan has yet been submitted to Dublin City Council but I note that Fingleton White approached An Bord Pleanála in 2009 and 2010 and the board’s inspector decided that under section 37B of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006, the new proposal was considered to be strategic infrastructure and that planning applications must be made in the first instance to both Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council. This attempt by the developer to circumvent the democratic local authorities reflects the total lack of consultation by the proposers with residents and public representatives in the densely populated areas now proposed for this kerosene pipeline. With the exception of two poorly publicised briefings in September, none of the dozen or so affected parishes have received information on this proposal.

During the earlier 1999 to 2001 planning process significant health and safety issues were raised by residents’ groups but amazingly, no environmental impact study was submitted with the proposal. Furthermore, in their brief press releases, the proposers make no mention of an EIS for the current plan. We are informed that the 200 mm diameter pipeline will be made of continuous welded steel with an outer wall of 12.7 mm and that it will be laid 1.5 m below the road, with 1.2 m of cover. However, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why a much longer route of 4.4 km through densely populated areas is being proposed now rather than simply seeking an extension of the 2001 permission.

With regard to health and safety, in 1999 to 2001 and now, constituents rightly ask why such a pipeline – if needed at all – is not simply brought across open country from Bremore or Drogheda Port down to the airport. A review of accident history in the EU, the US and elsewhere, shows that fuel pipelines can be very hazardous. Even a cursory check on pipelines safety records reveals a disturbing litany of disasters in each decade since the 1960s. In the US there have been many serious oil pipeline incidents on the extensive American oil and gas pipeline networks. In 1976, for example, an oil pipeline ruptured in Los Angeles and killed nine people. Further afield, a 1998 oil pipeline explosion in the Niger delta killed about 1200 people and in 2006 a similar incident outside Lagos killed 200 people. Stricter EU legislation has meant there have been relatively few notable incidents involving oil pipelines in Europe but in 2004 there was a major gas pipeline rupture at Ghislenghein in Belgium where 24 people were killed and 132 seriously injured. It is clear that leak detection systems for oil pipelines arecritical aspects of such infrastructure but in the earlier proposal in this matter and now there is little or no information on such safety mechanisms and standards.

It beggars belief that according to Fingleton White of the six routes allegedly ear-marked by the developers in so called pre­planning discussions the Malahide road route came out as the optimal route. Constituents ask why this pipeline and any such route is needed at all. They correctly point to the presence of the €800 million port tunnel which over the past eight years has diverted heavy commercial traffic, including aviation fuel trucks, out of Dublin Port along the 4.5 km tunnel out past Santry and just 2 km further north along the M1 to Dublin Airport. The port tunnel was planned and developed from 1993 and it is one of the greatest infrastructural projects in the history of the State. Aviation fuel trucks make up 1.5% of the traffic in the tunnel. Maximising its usage of commercial and other vehicles is a core objective of sustainable Dublin transport policy. In both the US and EU legislation there seems to be no safe set-back distance for pipelines from family homes and public facilities.

This kerosene pipeline proposal through densely populated residential districts seems to be a half-baked, ill thought-out, kite-flying exercise by Fingleton White. I believe that no cost-benefit analysis will show that the use of an expensively built and possibly very dangerous oil pipeline through residential areas of Dublin Bay North is more cost-effective and safer for citizens than the existing simple system of oil transport utilising the Dublin Port tunnel which was a key reason for its construction.

Deputy Ann Phelan: I thank the Deputy for helping to raise awareness of the issue. I am taking this Topical Issue matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly. The Department has no involvement with this project, nor has the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I understand from newspaper reports that a company called the Independent Pipeline Company, which is backed by a County Laois-based engineering concern, Fingleton White and Dublin-based fuel transporters Reynolds Logistics, intends to submit planning applications to both Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council in the coming weeks for an aviation fuel pipeline between Dublin Port and Dublin Airport. In effect, the proposal is a private development. As the proposed pipeline would traverse the functional areas of two planning authorities, planning applications are required to be submitted to the two concerned planning authorities.

The role of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, with regard to the planning system is primarily to provide and update the legislative and policy framework, including the provision of policy guidance to the planning authorities, including An Bord Pleanála, so that they can carry out their prescribed planning functions. This legislative framework comprises the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2014 and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2013. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, has issued a large number of policy guidance documents in the form of planning guidelines under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act, to which planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are obliged to have regard in the exercise of their planning functions.

Therefore, in this particular case, if and when planning applications are lodged in respect of the proposed aviation fuel pipeline, the decision as to whether to grant planning permission, with or without conditions, will be a matter for the relevant planning authorities in the first instance. Given the scale of the proposed project, it will be a requirement that consultation with relevant statutory bodies and with the public is carried out as part of the planning application process. When ultimately making their decisions on the planning applications under section 34 of the Planning and Development Act, the planning authorities concerned will be required to consider the overall proper planning and sustainable development of the area, having regard to among other things, the provisions of the respective local development plans, any submissions or observations received on the planning applications and, where relevant, any relevant policy of the Government.

In addition, the requirements of the environmental impact assessment directive and the habitats directive, which have been transposed in our planning legislation, must also be considered. Accordingly, any environmental impacts of the project will be fully assessed, while also having regard to any inputs in this connection from the consultation process with relevant statutory bodies and the public.

The possibility of lodging an appeal against any decision of a planning authority is, of course, a fundamental feature of the planning system. The applicant or developer, as well as any person who made a submission on the original planning application, may appeal the decision of a planning authority to An Bord Pleanála, the independent statutory appeals board. In such instance, An Bord Pleanála is required to review the entire case and ultimately reaches its own determination on the matter, in line with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: I thank the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Kelly, who contacted me to apologise for being unable to be here. The Minister of State’s reply with regard to the consultation process is unsatisfactory. My constituents believe that this project is of major significance to strategic infrastructure, whatever its planning connotation and that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, should both be consulted directly. It seems incredible that we learn about this major plan from press releases rather than from engagement with the Government and with the local authorities.

What power has the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government with regard to environmental impact statements? This is a major infrastructural project costing at least €20 million and possibly more which will involve the promoters being given way-leave along the major traffic arteries of Dublin city. What power has the Minister to insist that an environmental impact statement would be produced?

In the previous instalment of this madcap proposal in 1991 to 2001, the Health and Safety Authority said that Ireland had no legislation covering aviation fuel pipelines and that the HSE and the HSA had no statutory remit with regard to the safety standards of the proposal. I do not believe this situation has changed. Are regulations in place to govern aviation fuel pipelines? I imagine legislation would have been drafted if we had discovered oil off the south-west coast. Hopefully there will be oil discoveries in the future off the coast of Connacht and Munster. There is a significant lacuna in such legislation.

Is it not incumbent on the Minister to bring forward legislation before this can even be considered? The Malahide Road is an impossible location because it is such a busy key artery in the north city and Dublin Bay North. It is unconscionable to hold it up for a year or more. The Dublin Port tunnel was specifically built for this purpose and aviation fuel trucks make up only 1.5% of the traffic. Surely we do not need this madcap half-baked proposal.

Deputy Ann Phelan: I draw the Deputy’s attention to the fact environmental impact statements are part of the planning process. They have been transposed into legislation. The proposed construction of the fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport is a private development. It will be required to go through the full rigours of the planning process. Consideration of a planning application will require consideration of the overall proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Local development plans will have to be taken into account.

I commend the Deputy on raising awareness about this. People complain about the public consultation aspect of our planning process. It is extremely important that people know what developments are taking place in their area so they can make a submission and make their views known. The planning authority will take all submissions into consideration and deliberate on them. The planning process is not necessarily there to help the developer. It is also there for the public, but the public must engage with it. I understand the Deputy is raising awareness about this.

 

DAIL SPEECH ON SOCIAL CLAUSES IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT BILL

20 Oct 2014
I warmly congratulate Deputy McDonald and her Sinn Féin colleagues on their introduction of the Social Clauses in Public Procurement Bill 2013. I agree h2ly with its basic principle in providing specific recognition of the need to hire unemployed persons and apprentices on publicly funded contracts through the use of social clauses. This is an issue I have raised before with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, in the House. Deputy McDonald also mentioned European legislative developments in this area, as well as the initiatives taken by the former Northern Ireland Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, which we could emulate on this part of Ireland.

I note that there has been a small pilot programme on the Government’s part to ensure that a certain percentage of workers hired on public contracts come directly from the live register, particularly in the schools building programme. However, I have major concerns about how this is working generally. Serious issues having been raised by workers and trade union representatives about the effect of their being forced to become self-employed through the RCT, relevant contracts tax, system.

The Bill is timely given the commitment of the Government in budget 2015 to increase capital expenditure for the first time in seven years following cuts of 70% since 2008. The welcome small resumption of a social housing programme will bring into sharp focus the need to ensure that the Government’s stated aim of getting people back to work is actually realised, and the use of social clauses as proposed in the Bill is one of the measures needed.

Another issue that has come to my attention recently is the urgent need to get local unemployed people working on local projects, particularly construction projects, which may arise in their areas. I recently met unemployed constituents who again proposed that local unemployed construction workers, of which there are a significant number in Dublin Bay North, should be hired on a housing project due to commence soon in Darndale, Dublin 17. One of my local colleagues, Councillor Larry O’Toole, has been interested in pursuing this issue.

Section 2 outlines the requirement for social clauses to be contained in public procurement contracts worth more than €1 million. Section 2(b) provides for the hiring of one unemployed worker for every €1 million of project value, while section 2(c) provides for the hiring of one apprentice for every €2 million of project value. Sections 3, 5 and 6 provide for invigilation by the Office of Government Procurement of compliance with the social clauses as proposed in the Bill.

I welcome the Bill’s provisions. I am also grateful for the useful note prepared by the Library and Research Service on it. However, its paper refers, as did the Minister of State this morning, to an alleged potential negative implication of the Bill – that is, the costs associated with enforcement of social clauses. Developers and employers might raise such an issue. Surely any costs associated with such an invigilation process, however, would far outweigh the benefits of increasing employment opportunities for the significant number of construction workers who remain unemployed since 2009.

Like other Members, including Deputy McDonald, I previously asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, how social clauses in public procurement contracts could be applied. When I last asked him about it in April, he informed me of the approval last year by the Government’s contracts committee for construction of a pilot initiative to be included in the National Development Finance Agency’s devolved schools programme. The Minister stated:

A clause has been included in the contract which requires that 10% of the person-weeks worked on the contract be undertaken by individuals recruited from the ranks of the long-term unemployed. There is also a requirement for 2.5% of the person-weeks on the contract to be undertaken by apprentices.

However, the Minister suggested that such clauses could not be applied more generally to public contracts because of their displacement effect on employed people. I am not entirely sure if this argument would stand up to close scrutiny, particularly when we have such significant levels of unemployment in the construction sector. The introduction of new public capital contracts will inevitably involve the need to recruit additional workers who are not already in employment. Being involved in other local community development projects in Dublin Bay North, I have noted that several companies can be involved in a contract, or one could be partnering a small local company. There may be scope through local development bodies to implement this social clause provision.

I have also asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, for their views on how more employment opportunities could be created for unemployed construction workers on public contracts. They expressed support for the initiative from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The pilot scheme in place, however, is just a small first step. The former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, advised me in April that across three contract bundles for building works on 15 schools, eight unemployed people had been hired in one of the contract bundles, with only a further two hired in the other two contract bundles. Still, I welcome the ongoing progress of the pilot project as outlined by the Minister of State this morning and the fact that he is to accept this Bill.

A related concern, of course, exists with regard to the schools building programme in its treatment of workers on some sites operating under the programme. I have referred to this issue on several occasions in this House, including last week during the debate on the Workplace Relations Bill 2014. I, as well as Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil Members, have asked numerous Ministers to address the concerns of workers on some of the sites. The primary issue at the heart of the whole matter is the continued use of the RCT system to force construction workers into self-employment and very low wages. This is borne out in the statistics, which show that the majority of RCT workers are registered in the construction sector, representing around 40,000 people each year. Some workers on these sites allege that the RCT system is being forced upon them to drive down the overall price of the job.

I recently referred my concerns about the matter to the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Nash, who informed me he would take the matter up with the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners. A dramatic change in the treatment of construction workers is needed. I noted that in his budget speech the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform cited the success of the schools building programme and said it was the preferred model to be employed in the social housing projects pledged by the Government. I presume legislation will be introduced on the new off-balance-sheet vehicle to which Ministers referred last week as part of the response to the desperate need for housing.

There is also a need to provide locally based construction employment opportunities. Over the past few years, I have been asked several times by unemployed construction workers in Dublin Bay North about whether there should be a social clause in all public procurement contracts mandating the employment of workers registered in our local exchanges in Coolock and Kilbarrack. The most recent figures for September 2014 show that between the two offices there are over 8,500 people on the live register. During the past year there has been a particular focus on the final phase of the Darndale parish refurbishment at Buttercup Park. This has been ongoing since Garret FitzGerald was Taoiseach. We have battled for this last phase for the past ten years. It is expected that the work to construct 35 homes in north Buttercup will commence shortly. Yet, in an area with some of the largest numbers of unemployed construction workers, there is no commitment to employ workers from the north Coolock-Donaghmede ward of Dublin City Council.

Unemployed workers ask why the council does not insist on a provision in public contracts whereby even 10% to 15% of local unemployed construction workers would be considered for those positions. I know that colleagues on the council have been trying to pursue the involvement of local small and medium-sized enterprises in major contracts. In the huge North Fringe district of Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council there is a plan to build up to 30,000 houses, which would comprise a town similar in size to Tralee. It is remarkable that over 5,000 homes and thousands of square metres of commercial development were built in this region during the Celtic tiger years with little or no local labour. It must also be noted that some of the construction, such as that of the notorious Priory Hall, was of a very poor standard.

I have been a director and board member of the Northside Centre for the Unemployed for nearly 25 years. We recently passed a motion which h2ly supported the idea of social clause contracts and greater local involvement. I warmly welcome Deputy Mary Lou McDonald’s Bill. In the past seven years skilled construction workers have suffered greatly owing to the building crash and it is critical that they be facilitated in returning to the work at which they excelled and which earned them a decent living during the good times.

 

SPEECH ON BUDGET 2015

16 Oct 2014
I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on budget 2015. Last night I voted against Financial Resolution No. 1 as the only means I had of showing total opposition to the many failures and missed opportunities of this budget. Budget 2015 should have been the perfect platform for turning away decisively from austerity and embarking on a new national path. Unfortunately, to echo the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, we did not take the road less travelled. In fact, that would have been the road of breaking free from cuts and decisively moving to a fairer distribution of taxation to benefit all our citizens. For the fifth budget in a row, Deputy Noonan, as I expected, has continued on this well-travelled well-worn harsh road. It is the road travelled by so many other European countries at the behest of Chancellor Merkel and Germany. It is the harsh road of protecting great vested interests and keeping public services expenditure in a continuing straitjacket. A cursory glance at the comprehensive expenditure report of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, confirms this view. The social protection budget, including social insurance payments by workers, has been cut by 1%, or €200,000, in budget 2015. The education budget will rise by only 0.7%, or €60.4 million, and includes continuing cuts in the school capitation grant and other charges from past budgets.

Even the health budget will increase by just 2.3% to €13.46 billion, despite the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, arguing time and again in the media that the 2014 outturn had to be at least €13.6 billion just to maintain basic hospital and patient services this year. The ongoing scandal of hospital waiting lists and extreme pressures on emergency departments, such as in Beaumont Hospital in my constituency, cannot be addressed by the Estimates before us. Deputies have already said that the health budget is a once again a phoney budget which will impinge heavily on the most vulnerable of our citizens – the sick – and that is certainly borne out when one looks at the full expenditure review. There is also a projected €130 million in savings in the health budget through procurement, drugs costs, agency costs, clinical audit and special investigation, but will this be achieved? We know what happened last year to the so-called probity medical card savings.

There are also major cuts in the budget for the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, at over 5%, and in the budget for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, at 2.6%. These two Departments are, of course, led by very inexperienced Ministers who perhaps did not distinguish themselves in other roles. The belated 42% increase in the environment budget is welcome, but the increase of 1.2% or €638 million in overall gross capital and current expenditure is hardly the dramatic end to austerity that was being hailed by the usual media chorus this morning.

I note that Ministers have been suggesting that lower- and middle-income families will be slightly better off after this budget. That is not the case when one takes into account the impact of water charges on household finances. Even with the subsidy for social protection payment recipients of €100 per year and the tax relief for income tax payers to a maximum of €100 per year, the net impact of water charges on many lower and middle income families will be to make them worse off. Today, I again call for the abolition of Irish Water, this unnecessary incubus with its cosseted, highly paid and unnecessary staff which effectively places a barrier between the work of this House and ordinary households and local authorities. There is also the nonsense we go through at present whereby we contact a post office box in Cork to get some type of response. It then contacts Fingal County Council, in my case, which then contacts me and Irish Water. It is a circle of totally unnecessary bureaucracy. Let us get rid of Irish Water. I hope the Acting Chairman, Deputy Twomey, will put that point of view to his party, because that party, with the Labour Party, is heading for annihilation at the next general election. The Government will lose at least 50 or 60 seats, between both parties, if Irish Water survives. It is a most unnecessary and unjust tax. Irish people will simply not accept it.

In the run up to the budget, Fine Gael Ministers and lobby groups such as the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, continually raised the impact of the 52% marginal tax rate on middle and higher income earners. The Minister’s proposed income tax changes, including the cut to the 41% rate, a higher entry point to the higher rate of €33,800 and the USC changes, are said to reduce the tax burden, but many of us have considered what the impact would be of a 1% or 2% cut in VAT overall. It must be recognised that all citizens are taxpayers and there must be recognition of the very regressive nature of consumption taxes such as VAT.

Budget 2015 contains a significant amount of tax expenditures, particularly for agri-business – I estimate that expenditure of approximately €30 million was announced yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Noonan – and other big business interests, which amounted to perhaps another €80 million, including the new knowledge development or patent box. Yet, other than preliminary headline figures for the cost of each new tax expenditure, we do not know the cumulative impact of tax expenditures on the public finances. For the past two decades of my membership of this House, the Minister and his predecessors have come to the House with a huge finance Bill mainly concerned with these tax expenditures, but we do not have any information or cost-benefit analysis on the cumulative impact of all of those expenditures. In fact, would we have had a budget deficit at all this year or last year or in any year since the crisis developed if we had not had such expenditures?

I welcome the proposed abolition of the “double Irish” tax arrangement, basically for the sake of our country’s reputation. I also acknowledge the Government’s commitment to retaining the 12.5% corporation tax rate. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, told me a few months ago that the average effective corporation tax rate was 10.7% or 10.9% since 2008, but I do not know what that means. What does it mean when we know that some huge companies are paying only 1% or 2%? Most of the citizens we represent would expect us to deliver a 12.5% tax rate. They pay the PAYE standard rate or 40% rate and the VAT rate, and they would expect corporations to pay the tax rate that this House has designated. We have always dodged that issue.

In the budget submission I made last week to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, I advocated two solidarity taxes to raise approximately €900 million. These were a new 48% income tax rate on individual incomes above €100,000, something I and a number of other Independent Deputies have proposed over the last few years, and a bank levy of at least €500 million, to continue through the years until the national debt-to-GDP ratio falls below 60%. Of course, there was never a chance of such a solidarity tax being introduced by a Fine-Gael-led Government, and neither Minister had much to say yesterday about banking.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to offer my comments. Yesterday, unfortunately, was not the end of austerity, but a missed opportunity by two Ministers who might well regret it when we are all on the hustings, perhaps next year.