I congratulate Deputy Ó Caoláin on his elevation to the rank of leadership of the Technical Group and I know he will strive hard to stay within the strict guidelines the Ceann Comhairle operates in this regard.
Leaders’ Questions
I hope Deputy Kenny also does so.
I welcome that the Minister for Finance, on what appears to have been a solo run, has put an end to the payment of €40 million in bonuses to senior bankers in AIB. I do not welcome that on a "Prime Time Investigates" programme, Ireland was exposed last night to a series of incidents of indignity, inhumanity and unchristian and uncaring activities. A number of years ago, Deputy O'Dowd used freedom of information legislation to expose the position that applied in the Leas Cross nursing home, as it then was, and a number of others. The "Prime Time Investigates" programme broadcast last night exposed rottenness at the heart of Irish society. While this may well be relevant to a minority of carers, it was a sickening episode of inhumanity to elderly persons and was something that could happen to anyone or to everyone's mother in such a situation. This is not what the Taoiseach wishes to see, nor what this House wishes to see and it is not something with which Ireland should be obliged to put up.
I would not mind but the impact of the programme was quite devastating for many people. There were images of an elderly person being force fed in 2010, which is an unacceptable practice. Persons who were not vetted, trained or used to administering drugs or food in its various forms to elderly people were visiting the private homes of elderly people. There were uncaring attitudes, where elderly people who were still able to do things for themselves were not allowed to do so. It is a modern-day form of human imprisonment of the worst type.
The Taoiseach has been an advocate of the things he has done in government and how he has conducted its business. He said on more than one occasion——
Deputy, I am afraid I have a note on the time for Leaders' Questions.
I note the Ceann Comhairle's note on the time. Time is short for the elderly people in question.
I note the Taoiseach's many responses about acting in accordance with the best advice available to him. The Law Reform Commission made recommendations on regulation of the industry in October 2009. The NESF report, of which I have a copy, stated the same, namely, that regulation was absolutely necessary in situations like this. The Minister of State with responsibility for older people, Deputy Brady, said she expected to introduce regulations in this area early in 2010, almost a year ago.
This is an intolerable practice which has to be ended. In view of the Taoiseach's many comments that his Government acts on the best advice, what is his explanation as to how the situation has been allowed to develop to intolerable and inhuman levels? What are we doing in so-called Christian Ireland in 2010?
It is important to point out that the programme, which I did not see, that was broadcast last night alleged that the lack of regulation in the home care sector leaves the recipients vulnerable to abuse. I understand four cases were highlighted. It is important to point out that any individual case where less than professional and caring services are provided is something which nobody in a position of responsibility would stand over. Therefore, there has to be a full investigation by the managers of the services in the HSE into all of these areas and a review must take place in order that they can confirm that clients who are in receipt of these services at local level are obtaining those services in a way that we all would expect.
There are a range of services available in community settings for people who require them. They include home helps, meals on wheels, day care, respite care and home care packages, as they are known. The majority of these are provided by the HSE and some by the voluntary or private sectors. Provision is in place for any complaints to be dealt with. A helpline which was set up this morning as a result of the programme received approximately 54 calls by noon, nine of which related to complaints that clients or their families had, which will be followed up. That complaints procedure is available to everyone who wishes to use it.
Regarding the question of making sure that a uniform level of care or access to services are provided, the Minister of State with responsibility for older people, Deputy Brady, has indicated that work has been continuing on this. In the new year the publication and implementation of national guidelines and procedures for the standardised implementation of the home care packages scheme and quality guidelines for home care support services for older people will be available, which we would all welcome. It is important that those guidelines and standards are proactively promoted.
There are members of the Home Care Association against which no particular case was impugned. People are providing a good service. However, anywhere, any instance or any day where people are treated with less than the dignity that we would expect for our people is not welcome or acceptable. The standards of care need to be of the highest professional standards at all times. The review that is being undertaken will assist in that.
Approximately 9,500 people are in receipt of home care packages at any one time, and 13,000 are in receipt of it annually. Some 80,000 people use more than 21,300 day care and respite care places in our system. Some 54,000 people are in receipt of help under the home health scheme, where hours of care are provided by neighbours and others. Given the spectrum of care available and the need that varies from individual to individual we need a flexible, proportionate response to make sure that people are being cared for and that neighbourliness is being encouraged.
Many people who are still in a community care setting require high standards of care and are attended by district public health nurses, others and people in the area we are discussing. The standard of professional care that we expect is of the highest level at all times and any digression from that must be dealt with and investigated thoroughly.
I asked the Taoiseach for his explanation as to why the recommendations made by expert bodies have not been followed through. He said no one can stand over this situation, the Minister of State will carry out a review and there will be a full inquiry — whether it is public or whatever — in respect of what we saw last night.
In September 2009 the NESF report was released which made it very clear what should be done. In October 2009 the Law Reform Commission reported in the same way. In November 2009 the absent Minister of State with responsibility in this area said she would introduce guidelines as early as possible in 2010. We are now told that, a year on, she will do something in the spring. What is the explanation of the Government as to why this has not happened?
I contrast the situation with the fact that the Government is prepared to write a cheque, irrespective of the amount, for banks. We rushed through nursing home legislation in 2006 to take almost €1 billion from elderly people. The legislation in respect of the bank guarantee scheme was rushed through. Legislation will be rushed through tomorrow in respect of credit institutions dealing with bank restructuring. However, there is no urgency about the most vulnerable, deprived and sensitive in our society, namely, those people who are of elderly and venerable years who, in these cases, were demonstrated to be the victims of inhumanity and a downright lackadaisical approach.
I have a letter from An Garda Síochána dated 13 October 2008 which refers to an application made by an eligible group for vetting in order to work with elderly people. Nobody has been vetted, two years on, to work with the elderly people in question. It is another symptom of the situation whereby people with no training or regulation are visiting elderly people. In view of that fact, is the Taoiseach prepared to be big enough to apologise to the elderly people concerned for the situation which has occurred on the watch of his Government, where neither regulation nor care has been practised in the cases evidenced in the "Prime Time Investigates" report?
This House would be unanimous in its concern about any digression from the highest standards of care one would expect, particularly for people who are elderly or vulnerable, people who are part of the mental health services and people living in community care settings. I would apologise to any family — I understand four cases were highlighted — for any digression from the standard of care which we are all entitled to expect. Of course that is the situation. It is not a question of being big enough or small enough to apologise. It is a question of this behaviour not being justified in any case, regardless of the number of people who are receiving proper care, thankfully. I do not accept the opening remark made by the Deputy — it was obviously geared more towards the headlines — to the effect that we are rotten to the core as a society. I do not accept that.
I did not say that.
You did. You said——
I said the programme exposed a "rottenness".
You referred to rottenness at the core of Irish society.
Yes. It is rotten.
I do not accept for a moment that such a comment properly——
The Taoiseach should check his recollection.
If I may, Deputy.
I did not use the word "core".
I listened in silence to what he had to say. I am not making a political point.
Do not.
I do not accept that level of rhetoric. It is irresponsible.
What was it so?
There were four cases. It is not about "rottenness" at the core of our society. It is about the four cases that were reported on yesterday. We do not know whether they are representative of more cases. That is why a review must take place. I am talking about a review.
The Taoiseach referred to "a full investigation"
If I may——
(Interruptions).
Many carers do their jobs conscientiously and professionally.
I agree.
As a representative of his constituency, Deputy Kenny knows many people who are dealt with properly and appropriately. Millions of home help hours are provided to 54,000 people in this country.
What will the full inquiry involve?
There are thousands of people in receipt of home care packages and day and respite care places. They receive good care in the great majority of cases, thankfully, because we do not have a society with "rottenness" at its core. We have a society with a strong, compassionate and professional approach.
You do not monitor any complaints.
I believe the great majority of people are receiving a good service, given the resources——
You do not monitor any complaints.
I am sorry, Deputy, do not interrupt me now. You made that point.
There is no monitoring.
I do not accept that premise.
They could not care less about them.
I accept that in any individual case that arises, such as the four cases that arose in this programme, a review is required. Some 65,000 people are in receipt of this range of services in the community. We want to see all of those reviewed. I do not refer to a full inquiry in the sense of a public inquiry. I am talking about a full review. Where problems arise, as they do from time to time when clients and families are less than satisfied with the level of service being provided in individual cases, those complaints are dealt with and arrangements are made for other providers and other people to come into those homes. I refer to what happens when families make the point that they are less than happy with the level of service, or perhaps with the person who is providing the service.
There is no central monitoring of any complaints.
That has happened on many occasions. Obviously, such concerns have to be accommodated where they are justified, or where it is reasonable for people to make that case. We need to take on board the lessons that are to be learned in this case.
One of the lessons is that a central monitoring system is needed.
We should not jump to the conclusion in all circumstances, or in all cases, that this is symptomatic of something that is systemic throughout the system. I do not intend to resile from my personal belief, which is that those who receive services, regardless of how they are provided, must at all times have the requisite dignity and care demanded by a professional approach. I refer to vulnerable and elderly people, in particular.
There are no inspections.
We all have members of families who have had the benefit of these services over the years. I am sure the majority of cases represented in this House, as elsewhere, would reflect that view as well. In no way should it dilute our sense of duty to those to whom that standard was not applied, as made evident in last night's programme. It is clear that a full and comprehensive review of all such cases must be conducted by local managers to ensure a situation like that which we saw last night is neither prevalent nor continuing.
They do not examine them now. That is the problem.
During Taoiseach's questions earlier this afternoon, I asked the Taoiseach about last night's episode of "Prime Time Investigates", which showed the cruel, abusive and inhuman treatment of vulnerable elderly people and the lack of regulation of this area. These problems have resulted from the Government's determination to privatise home care services. I intend to return to the subject on the Order of Business proper.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach about the letter the Minister for Finance has written to Allied Irish Bank, which purports to stop the payment of €40 million in bonuses to executives of the bank. The Government was shamed into sending the letter. It originally told us nothing could be done for legal reasons. It said it would deal with the matter by taxing future bonuses. The Government then said it would examine the matter again. Eventually, the Minister for Finance wrote the letter. I suppose it is a case of better late than never. The issue that arises is whether it might be too late. The Minister for Finance has acknowledged that the letter cannot stop the payment of the bonus to Mr. Foy, who took the legal challenge against AIB. The challenge was not contested by AIB.
I have been told that proceedings have been already started in at least 90 other similar legal challenges. Will the letter sent by the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, prevent the payment of bonuses to the 90 people who are involved in those cases? Can the Taoiseach explain why the letter was not sent at an earlier stage? The Government had a number of opportunities to take a position of this kind. It could have done so when the legislation on the guarantee was being dealt with in 2008. I remind the House that the legislation provided that terms and conditions, relating for example to remuneration and bonuses, would be attached to the guarantee. Why was the letter not sent when the original recapitalisation of AIB, in the original amount of €3.5 billion, was brought forward by the Government? When did the Government first become aware that these bonuses were to be paid? When was it informed that legal action had been initiated? When was it informed that a judgment — to the effect that a bonus was to be paid in Mr. Foy's case — had been made without contest?
I assure Deputy Gilmore that efforts were made in this matter in November 2010, after a final judgment was granted or entered in the case he mentioned. Earlier this month, after the recapitalisation of the banks had been agreed in the agreements with the IMF and the EU, the Minister was able to find a means, through the letter he provided, of making it clear to the bank directors that they would be acting in the best interests of the bank if they were to accede to his view. He made it clear that although there was no requirement for them to obtain his prior consent, which could not be conferred or inferred in respect of any decisions they might take on the matter, they would have his consent. It was not required. This approach provided a legal basis upon which the bonuses may not be paid, or would not be paid. Whereas the judgment in the case of Mr. Foy is a matter of a court order and has to be paid, my understanding is that the other cases which are in process have not yet been paid. It is important for us to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible, therefore, to provide as much legal justification as possible for the decision we are seeking to have effected, which is that these payments will not be made. I understand that in October 2010, AIB informed the Department that 91 employees had initiated legal proceedings in either the Circuit Court or the High Court, depending on the individual amounts involved, with the first case scheduled for 3 November 2010. It is clear that the employees in question are the people to whom this set of proceedings relates. As Members are aware, the liberty to enter a final judgment from the Master of the High Court in respect of the individual concerned was done in November 2010. I do not have a date for that.
The position, as I understand it and as the Minister for Finance has been communicating it, is that he has told Allied Irish Banks that if it proceeds to pay these bonuses, the bank will not benefit from the taxpayers' money the State intends to put into the bank. That is a position we would all support, but my question is whether it will work. The Minister has already acknowledged that it cannot affect the bonus in the case that has already been through the court and where the award has been made. The Taoiseach says there are 91 other cases in which legal proceedings have started. My advice is that, according to the Buckley case in 1950, the Oireachtas or the Executive cannot intervene or supervene — the word now being used by the Minister — in a case which has already commenced. If that is the case, while the Minister has sent his letter, bonuses will still have to be paid.
The Taoiseach's answer earlier has not clarified the position for me. Are we in a situation where the Minister is shutting the door after the bonuses have bolted? While he has finally taken action after all the publicity, are we not in a situation where it will not do the trick? Given that he did not do this when the guarantee legislation was going through the House, when the original recapitalisation was being done or when he found out that the bank was considering paying the bonuses, and although the letter is written and the threat made, are we in fact in a situation where, as this works its way out, we will find that the bonuses will end up having to be paid?
The Deputy is not correct in his assertions. This was a pre-2008 event, as he knows, and took place before the crisis. It was an existing——
It was 2009 when it took place.
That is right, when the payments were being made. The issue had been deferred from 2008 into 2009 and was continuing to be deferred because obviously there was some debate as to whether the payment could be avoided. However, the legal advice was to the effect that it had to be paid, and there were some 1,460 employees who had chalked up aggregate bonus awards to the tune of around €35.5 million. Therefore, the issue of the 91 employees is not the same as the 1,460, which is the total number.
The supervening issue being referred to by the Minister was such that he was indicating to the bank that if it was to go ahead and pay these bonus awards, it would be putting at risk the State money to be provided under the recapitalisation programme. Therefore, the directors of AIB took a unanimous decision that it was in the best interests of the bank, given that series of events, not to proceed with the bonus awards, despite the legal advice the bank had been given. This was the basis on which that decision was taken by the bank and it is the basis upon which we are now proceeding.
This decision was the result of continuing efforts over the weekend, following political discussions and advice on whether there was a way this matter could be resolved so that the taxpayer would not have to provide money for this purpose, despite the fact that there were pre-existing contractual arrangements in place. Therefore, as was said by the Minister this morning, this is difficult territory in legal terms, but we believe this is the means by which we can ensure that bonus payments are not paid, and to do so in a way that withstands legal scrutiny.
Sounds to me like a fudge——
We are moving on. I call Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
A Cheann Comhairle, I thank you at the outset for the opportunity to address the issue highlighted in the "Prime Time" programme last evening, that is, the disgraceful treatment of elder citizens by so-called home care providers, under the matters selected for the Adjournment.
Tomorrow, the Taoiseach will seek the endorsement of the Dáil for the Government's sell-out deal with the IMF. I know he will deny it, but I believe this debate and vote is taking place as a result of letters issued on my behalf by solicitors to both the Offices of the Chief State Solicitor and the Attorney General last week, demanding that this opportunity be provided to Members of this House under Article 29 of the Constitution, and that this be acceded to by Government by the close of business today. Otherwise, I would have reserved the opportunity to take whatever action I deemed necessary, including legal action. I know the Taoiseach will deny this, but that is my belief and it is the backdrop to what we are looking at tomorrow.
Does the Taoiseach recall the same IMF in its financial systems stability assessment update of 2006, stating: "Good progress has been achieved in strengthening the regulatory and supervisory framework." How well did it examine the situation then obtaining before it made that claim? Let us make no mistake: the birds of prey trio, comprising the IMF, the ECB and the EU, have been cheerleaders all along through the Celtic tiger years and have been encouraging endless borrowing. They have been applauding direct tax reductions and avoidance and they now have their claws deeply embedded in our economic and political future. Would the Taoiseach not agree that it is time to clip their nails and send them back from whence they came?
Make no mistake, personable and all as Mr. Ajay Chopra can be, we do not want a new lord-lieutenant here in Ireland. We have history books full of those experiences. We want to retain whatever last vestiges of our economic sovereignty and independence we have, and we can have that.
This is Leaders' Questions and the time is limited.
I have already asked two questions, a Cheann Comhairle, and I will ask a few more. The IMF is the body to which the Taoiseach wants to sell out the remaining economic sovereignty we have in this State. Will he not now grasp the opportunity in this eleventh hour moment and not proceed with this shameful deal, given that the IMF's board has itself decided to postpone the final sign-off, consequent to the fact that we are going to debate this matter and vote on it here in the House tomorrow?
As a citizen and elected representative, I have the right to demand this, but I am appealing to the Taoiseach not to proceed with these actions——
Will the Deputy give way to the Taoiseach, please?
I am concluding with this. I am appealing to him not to burden this and future generations with a bank bailout debt created by the gamblers who gambled on Anglo Irish Bank and other corrupt banks, and who lost. I am asking——
The Deputy is into long-winded statements which are entirely inappropriate for Leaders' Questions.
Will he heed the cry of the people and those who are already hurting in our society as they say, "This is not our debt — we did not take this gamble"?
The Deputy is completely out of order. I have already asked him to give way to the Taoiseach.
The purpose of the motion being tabled tomorrow is to ensure there is full certainty regarding the views of this House, as expressed last week by a majority in its support for the first instalment of this four-year recovery plan through the passing of the budget. The purpose is to demonstrate that there is no uncertainty about the fact that this House, representative of the Irish people, is anxious to ensure that we bring the funding certainty to this State over the next three years that this programme will provide.
The request from Sinn Féin Members that we not do so suggests that they have some funding mechanism in mind. If they could let us know what that is, we would be glad to hear from them. However, it would surprise me if the funding mechanism was such that it would have that amount of money available. Let us wait and see.
The real issue is that for this country to rule itself for the next three years, we need to have funding available to deal with the deficits we are reducing over time in a manner that seeks to protect to the greatest extent possible the social and economic gains of the past. To do that there has to be certainty and stability, and that is what this programme provides for us. Those prospects are available. The only alternative mechanism I am aware of for the provisions of funds for the sovereign would be from the markets, which we are not in at present. If we were to seek to obtain money from those markets, it would be at far higher rates than what is available under the agreements for discussion and decision tomorrow.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin on a brief supplementary.
Will the Taoiseach not accept that the alternative is that we should not be paying this bank bailout debt and that, if it is the case that the Sinn Féin propositions fall in any way short in terms of current spending, we would be infinitely better off going to the open market and paying additional percentages for a much smaller sum of money, thus retaining our control, self-determination and sovereignty in relation to our economic future? What the Taoiseach is proposing to do will strap our people into horrendous circumstances for many years into the future.
The Deputy is imparting information and should ask a question.
Surely, I can have a moment to do so.
Yes but only one minute is allowed in respect of supplementary questions on Leaders' Questions.
I am asking the Taoiseach how he can reconcile the prediction by his Government in the so-called national recovery plan — a national impoverishment plan, as I referred to it earlier — that there will be 5% GDP growth between 2010 and 2012 with the EU Commission prediction of 2.8% growth, that consumer spending will increase by 1% when the Commission claims it will decrease by 2.8% and that there will be an increase in employment by 18,500 and the Commission's prediction of a further decrease in employment of 4,000?
The Deputy is allowed only one minute to ask a supplementary question.
How does the Taoiseach reconcile these widely divergent views and predictions in regard to the future, and with a body with whom the Government is entering into a fixed deal for many years to come? I ask that the Taoiseach take the opportunity to talk to his advisers and to listen to the alternative views, if not from the political parties lined up in this Chamber, to the other non-politically aligned views being expressed——
Deputy, please ask your question.
——by the voluntary community sector, the trade union movement and ever growing number of economists. It is not too late. There is a better way.
What I cannot reconcile in terms of their logic are the two propositions I have just heard from Deputy Ó Caoláin. The first proposition is that we ignore sovereign debt markets from whom we have obtained the money and default on the debt.
No, we are talking about bank bailouts.
The second proposition was that I should not ignore EU Commission forecasts on growth, employment and other economic indices and should reject my own.
I asked how the Taoiseach reconciled them.
The first series of questions were a call to Irish sovereignty and the second series were that the Government should ignore our own opinions and take on board someone else's. The illogicality of what the Deputy says is self-evident.
I am not commending them to the Taoiseach at all.
Deputy, please.
The Deputy has been helpful in terms of allowing me to glean Sinn Féin's policy position, which is to suggest that our sovereign debt is not a sovereign debt, that we default on that sovereign debt, which is probably the party's new definition of not recognising the sovereigns.
It is bank bailout debt, not sovereign debt. Put it back in the category it belongs.
Deputy Ó Caoláin please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
The third proposition is that we then go to those markets from whom we have obtained those funds for more funds at a higher rate, all of which are illogical and impossible. The Deputy's view — he can check the official record — is that we do not acknowledge the debts we have, do not pay them back and get more money at higher interest rates, if necessary.
The Taoiseach is totally misrepresenting me.
That is what the record will say.
The Taoiseach is misleading the Dáil, as he has done every day as Taoiseach——
The Deputy had better check with the politburo before he comes in tomorrow.
The Taoiseach, without interruption please.
——and when Minister for Finance——
Have a proper debate.
The Taoiseach is a disgrace.
Some €35 billion of the IMF deal is going into the banks. That is not a sovereign debt.
Is Deputy Doherty the leader of Sinn Féin?
The Taoiseach is fooling nobody.
(Interruptions).
I will have to ask Deputy Doherty to leave the House if he does not restrain himself.
The Government will not get away it. What it is doing is disgraceful.
The Deputy has done a good day's work now.