Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 2016

Vol. 915 No. 2

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Sean Fleming

Last week, RTE's "Prime Time" examined and exposed how a charity, Console, spends its money. Last April, the HSE did an audit, which is with senior management in the HSE. Console is a well known, well respected and highly regarded national charity which helps families which have lost members through suicide. It provides a 24-hour phone helpline to anybody who is distressed about himself or herself or a family member. It receives a staggering 3,400 phone calls per month, more than 100 per day. It has offices all over the country and our President is the national patron.

However, people who watched the programme were shocked, stunned and appalled at the allegations of misappropriation of funds. Console has received €2.5 million from the HSE in recent years to help it provide counselling services. Almost half of its money comes directly from taxpayers through State organisations and the balance is raised through fund-raising and donations from the public. In addition, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade allocated €130,000 to Console to enable it to support Irish emigrants in the UK.

Like all charities, Console depends on the goodwill of people. Thousands of people do charity walks, cycles and other fund-raising activities each year to raise funds for Console. Yesterday, I listened to restaurant owner Derry Clarke speaking on the radio. He lost his son and, afterwards, he organised a charity cycle, which raised more than €250,000 for Console's good work. He expressed the genuine hurt he felt about the allegations that were made and how he felt abused by the use of the funds he had raised and donated to Console. The CEO of Console, Paul Kelly, has since resigned. He said he had not intentionally done anything wrong. The Garda is examining the use of the funds, some of which were allegedly spent on trips to conferences in New Zealand for family members. "Prime Time" alleged that the CEO of Console had received payments of over €215,000, which allegedly is in breach of company law and Revenue regulations.

The charities regulator exists to increase public trust and confidence in the management of charities. Was the regulator aware of the allegations about Console? They have seemingly been well known to some people for many years. Did the Tánaiste discuss the revelations with the charities regulator? Will the charities regulator investigate the matter? What action is the Tánaiste taking to ensure other charities are being monitored and audited to ensure no such abuse of State funding or people's donations occurs in those areas? How will the State ensure the abuse of State funding or people's donations to charities is prevented in the future?

The Tánaiste

It is critical that confidence is maintained in the charities sector and that the members of the public have confidence when they make a donation to fund-raising that it will be used properly and appropriately. Concerns arose about another charity in the recent past and the previous Government ensured a charities regulator was put in place. It is distressing for people who support an organisation such as Console, which deals with the sensitive issue of suicide and supporting families, that trust has been broken in this way. I am concerned about the ongoing reports following last week's "Prime Time" broadcast. The HSE audited Console in the recent past, which brought some of the concerns to light. That demonstrates the robustness of the HSE structure in respect of charities. The priority for the executive is to ensure the ongoing provision of services and if anything further arises to disrupt them, it will step in.

The Charities Regulatory Authority is in the business of registering and regulating charities. More than 4,500 charities have registered with it. I can confirm that the authority and the UK Charities Regulatory Authority are both engaging with Console. I can also confirm that the authority's chief executive officer, Mr. John Farrelly, has been active on this and he has been in ongoing contact with its trustees and is seeking formal written undertakings from them to assure the authority, via the provision of a report, that the property and the finances of the charity are secure and subject to robust corporate governance, that allegations of financial impropriety will be investigated, that a full report on that will be issued to the authority and that they will consent to the authority applying, if required, its powers to assign new trustees to the charity to assist the current board in its work. It is clear, therefore, that the regulator is playing an active role. He has also sought reports from An Garda Síochána and is working with the force. He has asked RTE for any assistance it can give. There has been a robust response, as is appropriate, to the allegations that have arisen because it is essential that confidence be maintained in the NGO and charities sectors and the authority is in a position to carry out its functions in this regard. The Garda may have a separate role if there are other allegations.

Deputy Sean Fleming

We are all agreed about the need for Console to continue its good work and for its reputation and good name not to be damaged but it seems the charities regulator is responding, according to what the Minister said. He should have had a proactive role. He should not wait for the damage to be done before he comes in to do something. He has powers and he should have been in Console's offices long before now dealing with these issues before they came to light publicly. This scandal has the potential to damage Console's reputation and good work and every effort must be taken to ensure that does not happen. It is crucial that these investigations be concluded speedily in order that Console and its staff can get on with their good work. It has been reported that there are up to six different sets of company accounts, which is extraordinary. This matter will also have to be addressed by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement as well as the Garda and its report will also have to be examined.

Will the Tánaiste assure the House this will be brought to a speedy conclusion? Will she confirm that no other charities are being investigated by the regulator and that we will not see more television programmes such as this?

The Tánaiste

The charities regulator has no role in investigating fraud nor has it any competence to carry out that type of investigation. However, in respect of the behaviour of charities, once a complaint is made to the authority, it will carry out an investigation and, where appropriate, involve other bodies, whether that is the Garda or the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

However, we now have the Charities Regulatory Authority in place, and that is to reassure the public that if they have concerns about charities, they can report them to the regulator. I have no doubt that given the seriousness of this issue, the huge public interest and the confidence issues at stake, it will carry out its part of this investigation in a speedy manner.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Yesterday, we had statements on last Friday's vote by Britain to leave the European Union. The Taoiseach, during a lengthy contribution, said he regretted that decision and hoped the gains of the past two decades with regard to North-South co-operation were fully protected. While I welcome his comments in this regard, at no point in his contribution did he acknowledge that the North had voted to remain, nor did the Fianna Fáil leader, excluding one passing comment the purpose of which was to attack Sinn Féin's demand for a referendum on Irish unity. Indeed, we have the bizarre situation where a leader of a so-called republican party advocates support for the Scottish Government's position of not being dragged out of the EU but does not support the same position for part of this country that voted to remain.

It is incumbent on the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Government in the wake of Brexit to respect the wishes of the electorate in the North. The result of last week's referendum will have huge implications for the island, the peace process, the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the ongoing stability and welfare of communities across the North of Ireland. There are also very real practical difficulties citizens will face. Take the case of students from the South attending university in the North. What about those who travel across the Border frequently for business or who live in Border regions and criss-cross the Border for their social and family lives? What about those who live in the North and work in the South?

The British establishment, which barely mentioned the North during the course of the Brexit campaign, does not understand the seriousness of these issues. There is now a huge responsibility on the Irish Government to think nationally, and I mean that in the real sense of the word. I mean 32 county-wide. It means ensuring full co-operation between the Government and the Northern Executive. That means working to promote the interests of the whole island and the North in particular in negotiations at EU level. It means supporting the right of Ministers in the North to deal directly with the EU institutions. The people of the North have the right to have their voice heard and their vote respected. Will the Tánaiste support those measures that I have outlined and commit to ensuring that proposals for co-operation are brought to the North-South Ministerial Council meeting next Monday?

The Tánaiste

Along with most of my colleagues in the House, I had advocated a different outcome in the UK referendum. However, I fully respect the decision that the people of the UK have made. It is very important in the immediate aftermath of that decision that we recognise that there will be no immediate change to the free flow of people, goods and services between our islands. We have engaged in contingency planning across all Departments and that will continue. The Taoiseach gave an outline of some of the issues. He is attending the Council meeting today and he will also attend the meeting tomorrow. We have a North-South meeting on Monday where undoubtedly these issues will be further discussed. I assure the Deputy that the Government will be fully involved in all negotiations to represent Ireland's interests.

With respect to the particular points the Deputy made, I note on Monday, 27 June during a debate in the Assembly, a joint position from the DUP and Sinn Féin was put forward by the First Minister in a statement on behalf of herself and the Deputy First Minister. This emphasised their determination to work together in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and outlined the establishment of teams in the Northern Ireland civil service to work with Dublin, London and Brussels on dealing with the outcome of the referendum. This is consistent with the position of the Government, which has made clear the priority it attaches to the implications for Northern Ireland in the negotiations which lie ahead.

We underlined the primacy of the Good Friday Agreement in setting out the relationships on and between these islands. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will be in Belfast for the bilateral meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the review meeting of the Stormont House Agreement and Fresh Start. The latter will be attended by the First and Deputy First Ministers. They will discuss the referendum and its implications. That is part of the agenda for that meeting. The main objective of the North-South Ministerial Council, which will take place on Monday, will be to discuss the very issues the Deputy has outlined, including the implications for Northern Ireland and the all-island implications of the vote with particular reference to the four priority areas the Taoiseach outlined.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The Good Friday Agreement to which the Tánaiste refers revolves around a concept of consent, which has not been uncontroversial in Irish politics and history. I put it to the Tánaiste that it is not sufficient for her blithely to say she respects the vote of the UK. I have asked her to recognise and respect the vote of the people of the North of Ireland who, by a majority, voted to remain within the EU. I ask the Government what it proposes to do to honour and vindicate that democratic decision. The people of the North do not consent to Brexit. By democratic ballot, they have decided that they wish to remain. The Tánaiste should know that notwithstanding comments by the First Minister, the joint First Minister speaks for the majority when he says that he and his colleagues will defend and honour that democratic decision. I am asking the Tánaiste for more than a box-ticking or paper shuffling exercise. I want to know that concrete proposals will be brought forward at the meeting on Monday and that the Irish State and the Dublin Government will start from the position of the democratic wishes of the people of the North.

The Tánaiste

Of course, we recognise the result the Deputy outlined. There is no question of that.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

Say it then.

The Tánaiste

Clearly, the concerns of everybody on the island of Ireland are going to be uppermost in the minds of the negotiators at every level, including ministerial and official level. There are a range of issues. We are in a unique position as regards the impact of the result and very serious issues arise for us. The whole question of Border controls, maintaining the common travel area, immigration and ongoing security issues is of the utmost concern. However, we know that nothing is going to change overnight although there are very serious implications in both the medium and long terms as the full implications begin to be understood by all. The Taoiseach will be having detailed initial discussions over the next two days, which will be continued by Ministers dealing with their counterparts. Yesterday, I spoke with the Minister with responsibility for immigration in the UK and with security people who reassured me and pointed out clearly the fact that there were no changes envisaged immediately, for example in relation to any of those Border or security issues. Good co-operation North-South and east-west will continue.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It has been reported that the Independent Ministers in the Government have sought and received formal advice as to whether they are entitled to support in the House a Bill they have been advised is repugnant to the Constitution. The Attorney General has not changed and, as such, I presume the advice has not changed from that received from the time my own party was in government and the same question arose.

Regarding the water services Bill that is before the House, has the Government been advised as to whether its members can support legislation the sole purpose of which is to defeat what has now been clarified is an obligation of European law? Is it not clear from the reply of environment Commissioner Vella to the parliamentary question of Marian Harkin, MEP that the derogation exempting us from water charges was ended by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in government when they failed to apply for an opt-out in the management plans due in December 2009 and instead introduced the concept of water charges in 2010? If the Tánaiste accepts this, does she not also accept that we are bound by the EU law obligation and that such an obligation, under the decisions of our courts, takes primacy over our domestic law and Constitution?

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

And one wonders about Brexit.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I do not believe that the Oireachtas has ever been knowingly asked by the Government to legislate in a way that is directly contrary to European law. Has the Government been legally advised since the views were expressed by the Commission that Ministers are entitled to vote to support the Bill?

The Tánaiste

The position of the Government in respect of the Water Framework Directive has been well articulated. The current situation is that the establishment of an expert commission to assess and make recommendations on the funding of domestic public water services in Ireland and the nine-month suspension of domestic water charges were discussed at Cabinet. I am sure that the Minister will address the details of that commission later.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will then meet with the EU Commissioner in June to outline the current policy developments in Ireland in this regard. The Government is fully committed to securing a sustainable, long-term funding model for domestic water services that is consistent with its international environmental obligations. The suspension period, as has been said on quite a number of occasions, will hopefully allow for a measured deliberative process on the future funding of domestic water services and the future of domestic water charges. That is the Government position.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I did not ask what the Government position was. There are clear views passionately and honourably held by Members of the House on this matter. I am asking the Tánaiste as a matter of law whether the formal advice that the Government has received is that the Government is entitled to proceed with legislation that it has now been advised is contrary to European law. It is a simple matter. To avoid our country being exposed to legal action from the Commission, Members - certainly in my party - need clarity as to where we stand on this matter. If we are to have exposure, at least give us clear advice on these issues.

The Tánaiste

Obviously, the Government is proceeding with legislation. The Government operates within the constitutional advice that it receives.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Has the Government received it since yesterday?

Deputy Paul Murphy

The history of the European Union is one of defeats in popular votes in Ireland on Nice and Lisbon, in France and the Netherlands on the EU constitution, in Greece last year on the austerity package and now in Britain. Each time, the response of the establishments across Europe was not to question why people rejected the project. Instead, the EU's guiding principle was contained in the words of Mr. Bertolt Brecht, namely, that it would be easier to dissolve the people and elect another. It seems that the Labour Party is an adherent of Brecht in that respect.

The Brexit vote must not be treated in that way. Instead, it should be used to open a discussion about what kind of Europe we have. Do we continue with the elitist, anti-democratic project of this capitalist Europe, a Europe that dictates water charges and austerity, an authoritarian Europe where the European Central Bank intervenes to remove elected governments, a fortress Europe that concludes disgusting deals to imprison migrants in Turkey and a militarised Europe that is today discussing accelerated co-operation with NATO?

Alternatively, do we build a very different Europe - a socialist Europe for the 99% built on democracy, solidarity and co-operation?

Deputy Sean Sherlock

The Deputy is on the same side as the Tories.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Will the Government now take action to refuse to be constrained by the EU rules that amount to an undemocratic and neoliberal straitjacket?

I have three specific questions. First, does the Tánaiste accept that the blatant attempt by the European Commission to subvert the outcome of our general election, in other words, to dissolve the people, should be resisted and that this Dáil is free to abolish water charges? If so, will she dissociate herself from the comments of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Minister of State responsible for European Affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, who have welcomed the Commission's intervention precisely because it backs up their own political position, subverting the ability of this Dáil to get rid of water charges and, incidentally, subverting Fine Gael's own agreement with Fianna Fáil?

Second, given that the Irish State is, incredibly, not allowed, because of the EU fiscal rules, to spend the €5 billion in the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund or use the €2.4 billion in cash that NAMA has to build homes to resolve the crisis, does the Tánaiste agree that those rules have to be broken and should be dismantled? Does she agree that the need of people to have homes comes before the Thatcherite dogma contained in the fiscal treaty that the Government side supported?

Finally, and this is important, does the Tánaiste agree that under no circumstances should the Government vote in favour of or accept the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between the European Union and Canada at the European Council? This includes a mechanism for investor-state dispute settlement, the element that has aroused most opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, because it effectively allows corporations to sue states if they interfere with their right to profit. As well as being completely odious to any vision of democracy and people's rights, its application without a vote in this House would be in contravention of the Constitution. Article 29.5.2° clearly requires the approval of the Dáil to be bound by an international agreement that could result in a charge on the State.

The Tánaiste

First, I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of the role of the European Union and the part Ireland has played in it over the years or of the benefits that have come to this country as a result of our participation in the European Union. There are many people in this country who fully support our participation and are very conscious of the benefits that have accrued to this country. That is not to say the result in the United Kingdom will not give rise to ongoing discussion about the future of Europe. I referred in my speech yesterday to social Europe and the need for greater emphasis on social Europe and on ensuring everyone benefits. I referred to the need for the benefits of decision-making in Brussels to be felt by everyone.

Let me refer briefly to the summer economic statement, published a number of days ago. Are we not very fortunate that the Irish economy has improved to the degree that it has, thereby putting the country in a better position to deal with the potential consequences of the vote in the United Kingdom? It puts us in a position in which our people can be more protected from any potential fallout.

I have already spoken about the Government's position on the Water Framework Directive and the plans we have in this regard. The plans remain on course and we will not be changing them. I remind the Deputy that those who participate in European decision-making when directives are being agreed have been democratically elected by countries from around Europe. There is democratic decision-making in regard to directives and each country takes its position in this regard and deals with directives at national level.

On the Deputy's point about the future economic outlook and the fiscal rules, that was all very clearly laid out in the document and addressed during the course of the debate here. That remains the Government's position.

The potential implications of Brexit, at least in the short term, were taken into account when the summer economic statement was being drafted and published. The immediate impact of a potential vote to leave was set out in that statement.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Unfortunately, the Tánaiste did not answer my questions. On the fiscal rules on housing, I refer to the agreement between the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party. In the first line of the section on the economy, it reads, "Maintain our commitment to meeting in full the domestic and EU fiscal rules as enshrined in law." Let us contrast this commitment with the statement in the report of the Committee on Housing and Homelessness that the financing of "social housing by the State is restrained, as is all public expenditure, by the EU fiscal rules". We cannot resolve the housing crisis or use the money we have to build homes within the framework of the fiscal rules. It is a choice of obeying the rules or resolving the crisis and the Government should choose to resolve the crisis.

On water, will the Tánaiste confirm that the Government will invoke the exemption contained in Article 9.4 as part of its second river basin management plan? This will be crucial in allowing the Dáil the possibility of making a decision.

I also want an answer to my question about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada. This is an extremely serious matter, as it will result in the contravention of the Constitution if the agreement is provisionally applied and provides for the right of companies to sue states for interfering with their right to profit. One example is the case taken by the Lone Pine company under the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, against Canada in response to a moratorium on fracking. CETA would restrain our ability to implement legislation in the interests of workers, consumers and the environment in favour of corporate profit. It cannot be applied and the Government must take a position on the matter at the European Council. Which way will it vote?

The Tánaiste

On the commitment to deal with the housing crisis, I remind the Deputy that the Cabinet made a decision today to support people to stay in their homes at a cost of €12 million this year and €50 million in a full year. This commitment made in the programme for Government is being delivered on today. This is very important. We have a priority focus on putting more resources into housing to deal with the housing crisis. This is being done as we speak, as the Deputy knows, in terms of the ongoing commitment.

In regard to the negotiations with Canada, they are ongoing and have not been concluded. I have outlined the position with regard to water.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The European Commission has stated it will seek provisional application of the agreement at the European Council. The Government will have to vote on the proposal.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

This is a joke. The Tánaiste did not make any attempt to answer the questions.