I am sure the Tánaiste will agree that the documentary aired by the BBC last Tuesday night about how the Catholic Church had dealt with child abuse in 1975 was another shocking chapter in a sad litany of which we are only too well aware from reading reports such as the Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports. He will also agree that the church's inaction on that occasion led to many more vulnerable, defenceless people being abused. I suggest everybody in the House will agree that every citizen has now and always had at least a moral obligation to report any abuse to the civil authorities. The Taoiseach said in a speech to the House, presumably with the agreement of the Government, last July in the wake of the Cloyne report, "Today the Catholic Church needs to be a penitent church. A church truly and deeply penitent for the horrors it perpetrated, hid and denied." In the light of that comment and the revelations made in the BBC documentary, what is the Government's position or does it have one on the standing and future of Cardinal Brady, head of the Catholic Church in Ireland?
Leaders’ Questions
I agree with the Deputy that what we saw and what was reported in the documentary was another horrific episode in the failure of senior figures in the Catholic Church to protect children and report the abuse and rape of children. The rape or abuse of a child is a crime, and it was a crime then. The place for crimes to be investigated, prosecuted and dealt with is in the courts, and by gardaí. I do not believe there is a parallel system of law which deals with these matters. Anybody who has or had knowledge about the rape or abuse of a child has or had a duty to report it to the authorities. Whatever may be said about it occurring in 1975, whatever number of years ago and in whatever context, there have been plenty of opportunities since for the information on the abuse and rape of those children to be brought to the attention of the Garda and the matters which were known to be reported, not least when the case of Fr. Brendan Smyth who was at the centre of it came to public attention. The Deputy will recall, as far as the political response to the issue at the time was concerned, that that particular episode caused the collapse of a Government and the establishment of a new one.
As far as the Government is concerned, we are putting in place much stronger rules and regulations in respect of responsibility to children. The draft children first Bill, published by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs last week, will place a statutory obligation on organisations and named individuals to report information on abuse or significant neglect to the HSE, whether it occurs in the organisation or elsewhere. The purpose of the Bill is to protect the child about whom there is a concern and protect other children in the community from an abuser who may be abusing multiple children. The legislation will require a priest, as a pastoral member of a religious organisation, to report concerns about abuse directly to the HSE. In addition, the Minister for Justice and Equality has published legislation which provides for the withholding of information on sexual abuse to be deemed a criminal offence.
As far as the Deputy's questions about Cardinal Brady are concerned, I have always believed in the separation of church and State. It is the job of the Government and the State to enact our laws and ensure they apply to everybody, whether they belong to a church, but it is my own personal view that anybody who did not deal with the scale of the abuse we have seen in this case should not hold a position of authority.
I thank the Tánaiste for his comprehensive reply. I am aware of the legislation to which he referred. I welcome it and look forward to it being brought forward as quickly as possible.
The Tánaiste's forthright reply contrasts starkly with the reaction of the Taoiseach when he was asked about this issue yesterday evening. He made a speech in the House last July which was widely lauded from one end of the country to the other. Epithets such as "brave", "courageous", "forward thinking", etc., filled the airwaves, yet when presented with a concrete example - it is easy to look brave in the abstract - and asked what his position was, he refused to take the same position the Tánaiste has clearly taken this morning. I take it that the position the Tánaiste stated is his personal position and, presumably, that of his party, that it is not a Government position.
Let me deal with this issue very directly. Let there be no doubt in anybody's mind about where the Taoiseach stands on this issue.
It is just a straight question.
The Deputy is twisting this.
Deputy Willie O'Dea should not attempt to turn what is a very serious issue into some kind of political whack at the Taoiseach. People up and down the country are rightly horrified about what happened and the failure to report.
People are worried about the contrast in the Government's position between last July and now.
He was the first Taoiseach to come into the House to address in the most forthright and direct way where responsibility lay and where the responsibility of church authorities lay. Everybody who has heard him knows exactly where he stands on the issue.
Therefore, the Taoiseach's position is the same as the Tánaiste's.
The criticism may be made that one can come into the House and make a speech and so on. The proof of the pudding is what we have done as a Government and the follow-up we have given to the Cloyne report. After 14 years when, to be honest, not a great deal was happening in this area, we have produced the first legislation-----
The Government appointed the first Minister for Children and Youth Affairs in the history of the State.
We have produced the legislation which will underpin the Children First guidelines.
He was very brave last July.
That legislation is hugely robust and is before a committee of the Houses at present. In addition, because there has been this ambiguity about what happens where things are not reported, whether they can be reported, or whether there is some kind of a parallel system of justice that operates somewhere under some other system of law, whether it is called canon law or whatever, and that somehow that can be dealt with separately, we have made it very clear in the legislation which the Minister for Justice and Equality has brought forward that the withholding of information about sex abuse or about the abuse of children will not be acceptable and will itself be an offence. Let there be absolutely no doubt about where the Government stands, where the Taoiseach stands and where every member of the Government stands in regard to this horrific abuse.
I call Deputy McDonald.
Deputy O'Dea is playing politics with the tragedy of children. It is pathetic.
Order, please. I call Deputy McDonald.
If I might welcome-----
It is pathetic from someone who was in government and did absolutely nothing on these issues for 14 years.
Deputy Shatter should take a look in the mirror.
Children were abused in this State and he showed no interest in that issue when he was in government.
The Minister for injustice.
Do you mind, Minister? The rules apply to you as to any other Member. I will be asking you to leave the House if you are not careful. The rules apply to everybody equally in this House.
Including you, Mattie.
On behalf of Sinn Féin, I welcome most sincerely the clarity and the forthrightness of the response of the Tánaiste. This is a matter I would like to return to today under promised legislation but I warmly welcome and acknowledge his response and, most particularly, the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, in the area of child protection.
Yesterday the Tánaiste's party colleague, Senator Gilroy, highlighted the fact Senators earn €27,000 less than TDs. I am not sure whether he was calling for a reduction in the salary of TDs or an increase in Senators' pay - the Tánaiste might explain. What is the Labour Party's position on pay for politicians and special advisers? I believe, given the real suffering of people, this issue needs to be addressed.
Yesterday's live register figures show 436,000 people were without a job, and I have no doubt this figure is kept low because of the huge level of emigration. People are actively looking for work to pay their bills and look after their families, yet they still see their politicians, the political class, enjoying lavish salaries and perks of office. At a time when the Government is planning to impose water charges and other charges on hard-pressed households, for the benefit in particular of our Labour colleagues, I point out that Mr. Conor Murphy MP, the former Sinn Féin Minister who stopped water charges in the North of Ireland, is in Leinster House and you might want to talk to him later.
Will the Deputy please address her remarks through the Chair?
The charge is £1,500 in the North.
It is €100 in Dundalk and £1,500 in Belfast.
The Tánaiste earns a salary in excess of €184,000. That is six times the average industrial wage. Two of his own special advisers-----
Can we have a question, please?
-----earn €168,000 and €155,000 respectively.
The Deputy's party is the only one to take the Queen's shilling.
Will the Tánaiste set out for Members the position on high pay for politicians and tell the House what he proposes to do about these runaway, extravagant levels of pay?
Her Majesty's Treasury.
I can do better than that. I can tell Sinn Féin what the Government has already done. The very first decision the Government took was to cut the pay of politicians. We cut the pay of the Taoiseach, of every Minister in the Government and of TDs. What TDs and Senators are paid in this Dáil is considerably less than what they had been paid in the previous Dáil. We also cut the payments which attach to ministerial transport, for example, which are down by 65%. We also cut, or at least attempted to cut, the level of expenses that were paid to TDs. Mind you, when I looked at the league table of the expenses claimed by Members of the House, I noticed that the expenses claimed by members of Sinn Féin are at the top end of the league table, so Deputy-----
Never.
The Tánaiste might provide some documentation to back that up.
Will Members stay quiet? Allow the Tánaiste to proceed.
I see all the socialists are exercised. They were talking about workers' rights last night but it is all about their own rights now.
Will you stay quiet, please?
Those claims, of course, do not include the rather extravagant claim of ink cartridges that was claimed by Sinn Féin.
I did not see that one coming. What about the dodgy fivers?
A Deputy
Inkgate.
With regard to the Seanad, the Government is proposing the constitutional amendment-----
To reduce the bill.
-----on which we intend to have a referendum under which it is proposed to abolish the Seanad. Deputy McDonald may indicate to the House in her reply where she stands on that question.
With regard to the issue of employment, the Government is very focused on getting investment and employment into this country. We have, over recent weeks, had a considerable amount of success in this area. The Deputy will, I am sure, be aware of the announcements of jobs: PayPal - 1,000 jobs in Louth; Apple - 500 jobs in Cork; Cisco - 115 jobs in Galway; Ely Lilly - 500 jobs in Cork South-West-----
Change the record.
-----Mylan - 500 jobs in north Dublin; Microsoft - a $130 million investment in Dublin; Hewlett Packard - 280 jobs in Galway and Kildare; Abbott Pharmaceuticals - 175 jobs in Sligo; Amgen - 100 jobs in Dún Laoghaire; and there is another announcement of 250 jobs again today. Of course, we intend to continue with that work to get the level of unemployment down and to get people back into employment.
The short of it, then, is that the Tánaiste is defending the current pay rates of politicians. He thinks that, at a time of crisis, it is appropriate the Taoiseach takes home €200,000. He defends his own pay of €184,000.
There is ink on your face.
What message are we sending to the people who are out of work or the lone parents who were so brutally dealt with in the recent social welfare legislation? Are we saying to them, or is the Tánaiste saying to them: too bad, things are tough, suck up the austerity, but we are okay, Jack? It strikes me that is the Tánaiste's message. His own pay doubled in the last year when he moved from the Opposition benches into his Government position.
A question, please.
It defies all logic and rationality that they, the champions of austerity, the champions of cutbacks, defend these pay rates that cannot be justified and yet say to the public, to people who are struggling, that they have to take more and more hardship.
The Taoiseach does not take home €200,000. There is a difference-----
That is his salary.
There is a difference between gross pay and take home pay. Let us be clear about it. This Government has cut the take home pay of people at senior level in politics by approximately 44%. That is the total cut in take home pay. There is a limit to the amount of hypocrisy we can take from the Sinn Féin party on this question.
There is no limit to the Tánaiste's hypocrisy.
That party sees nothing wrong with having its members take a salary from a parliament they do not attend at all.
I understood there were only republicans in the Chamber these days.
They take considerable expenses from a parliament they do not attend. The Sinn Féin party is at the top end of the expenses claimed by Members. Anyone can examine the league tables because they have all been published. One finds consistently that Sinn Féin is at the top end of those claims. Interestingly, its representatives are at the top end in most constituencies when compared with constituency colleagues who, presumably, would have the same level of travel expenses and so on.
That is outrageous.
The Tánaiste has no idea how expenses work.
When Sinn Féin Members are in a position to address that level of hypocrisy, then they can come and make charges against us.
I call Deputy Pringle. Can we have some silence for him?
Machiavellian descriptive narrative and deceptive adjectives abound from the Government this week, with words such as "disaster" creating illusions of doomsday scenarios every time the fiscal compact treaty is mentioned. Doubt over future funding is the stick the Government is using with which to beat the people into submission by 31 May. Surely lessons should have been learned by this stage about the aftermath of signing treaties when ambiguities abound. What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.
Deputy Finian McGrath was never that poetic.
The fear factor comes from suggesting there will be no money in the ATMs and no money for teachers, nurses or pensioners. In recent days we had the intervention of the well-known seanchaí, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, raising the spectre of the December budget and saying: "He will catch you."
Deputy Pringle should sack the scriptwriter.
Please allow the Deputy to put his question.
As this drama plays out like a Shakespearian tragedy, albeit one poorly scripted, the Government banshee keens on: "There will be no foreign direct investment." It is a case of Angela's Ashes part two: the treaty sequel. The scenarios of Armageddon being peddled are truly staggering. If the European Financial Stability Facility funding will not be made available to the country, why did the European Heads of State declare on 30 March that any member state in a programme will be funded up to the point where they can return to the markets?
Deputy Shane Ross knows the answer. He is sitting beside Deputy Pringle in the Chamber.
Quiet, please.
Under the current programme does the Government intend to make a new application or use the roll-over facility which it seems to choose to ignore but which is available to the country under the EFSF?
I can see Deputy Finian McGrath making a comeback.
Deputy Shane Ross is the Chamber.
Can we have some respect from the Ministers, a Cheann Comhairle?
I called the Tánaiste to reply.
Please allow the reply. Someone asked a question and they will get an answer. Will the Tánaiste please answer?
A Deputy
Tell the court jester to keep his cracks to himself.
It is the banshee for justice.
This is the last time I will ask both sides of the House to stay quiet. The next time there will be action taken.
What about the working class hero?
The ghost of Leaders' Questions past.
There is no ambiguity and I am happy to answer the question directly. The position is that the programme Ireland is in, the EU-IMF-ECB programme, the programme with the troika, will remain in place. It will continue and will be honoured until it expires at the end of 2013. It is the Government's hope and intention that by that stage we will be back in the markets and we will be able to say goodbye to the troika and fund our State in the normal way by access to the markets.
Then the Government will welcome in the European Stability Mechanism, ESM.
Payments from the European financial stability facility, EFSF, will continue to be honoured up to that point. The European Stability Mechanism, the permanent emergency fund for the euro, will come into effect once 90% of the capital has been provided for it. It is due to come into effect in July 2012. After the end of our programme, the only emergency funding available to the country will be from the ESM. The EFSF will not take new applications for funding. For us to have access to the ESM we are required to ratify the treaty because the ESM will only be available to states that ratify the treaty.
What about the veto?
Deputy Mac Lochlainn has no idea what he is talking about.
The position is-----
He has no idea what he is talking about.
The only emergency funding available once the programme is over at the end of 2013 will be from the European Stability Mechanism. To ensure we have access to that if we need it, it is necessary to ratify the treaty.
I call Deputy Pringle.
Where will we get the €1.27 billion?
Please, Deputy Ellis. Deputy Pringle is capable of speaking for himself.
I do not take much comfort from the Government's forlorn hope that we will be able to return to the markets at the end of the current programme.
All commentators and economists throughout the world seem adamant we will require the second bailout programme. Options are available to the Government. The EFSF is one option. I call on the Tánaiste to explain to the House why chapter 1.4 of the articles of association of the EFSF states that financing granted prior to such dates may have scheduled maturities falling after such dates and disbursements thereunder may occur. The option is open to the Government to make a decision in 2013 and to apply to the EFSF for roll-over funding or a new programme. This will ensure our funding in future. That option is open to the Government. Why does the Government not consider it?
No, that option is not open to us. Let us be absolutely clear about it: it is clear in the treaty that the EFSF is prepared to continue funding that is already committed to under the existing programme. That programme finishes at the end of 2013. The Government's intention is that we will be back in the markets at that stage. To get back in to the markets we must get our economy to recover, to grow and so on. This is why the inward investment I referred to earlier and the various jobs announcements and so on are important. We are confident we will be able to continue to attract such investment provided there is continued investor confidence in the country.
The Government is strangling the economy.
That investor confidence-----
Deputy Joe Higgins blew it on Tuesday night.
Please allow the Tánaiste to continue.
He did not even turn up. He bottled it.
Please, Deputy McGrath.
Stop shouting please.
His soapbox collapsed under him.
Deputy Pringle has asked be a straight and important question.
Yes, exactly. We would like to hear the answer.
I want to give the answer without his colleagues constantly interrupting.
Please stay quiet and hear the answer.
The position is that our intention is to be back in the markets, and to do that we must continue the investment.
That continued investment is dependent on there being a stable euro, which is the reason it is necessary for us to ratify this treaty. Deputy Pringle said he does not believe we will get back into the markets. If we do not get back into the markets and if it turns out that a second bailout will be necessary, where will we get the money?
The only source of funding that will be available is the ESM, and access to the ESM will be possible only if the treaty is ratified. If, as a country, we want to have the insurance, the safety net and the reliability that is associated with having emergency funding available to us, which is prudent, we should be clear that the only source of that is the ESM, and access to that means ratifying the treaty.
What about the veto?