Next week's summit has been described as "do or die" for the euro so serious and urgent is the situation facing us. Analysts are predicting that Spain will require a full sovereign bailout. Its bond yields have risen to unsustainable levels and the situation in Italy is equally serious and urgent. We know that a committee of what are known as the four wise men - Van Rompuy, Juncker, Barroso and Draghi - is meeting to come up with proposals and more or less examining a newer version of the European Union treaties to create a fiscal union. Various proposals have been articulated which we have discussed in the House, including a banking union, a fiscal union, giving the ESM a banking licence and giving additional regulatory powers to the European Central Bank. The single most important thing that could be done to save the euro would be to enable the European Central Bank to become a lender of last resort. Will the Taoiseach outline the Government's position on the European Union? Fifteen months into its lifetime, it is hard to discern its position on such fundamental issues, particularly the creation of a fiscal union which is now being identified as essential to save the euro. Will the Taoiseach confirm that changes of this scale would necessitate significant changes to the existing European Union treaties and a further referendum in Ireland to facilitate consideration of such changes?
Leaders’ Questions
I recall the Deputy saying not one comma of the memorandum of understanding agreed with this country would be or could be changed. There is a difference between what people might want to have in a European context and what is actually achievable. The issues raised by the Deputy are all part of speculative discussions.
The agenda for the European Heads of Government meeting has not yet been determined by President Van Rompuy. I assume that following the meetings of the G20 and G8, there will be further analysis of what is going to be Europe's response. It is important to understand that the situation which has unfolded in the recent period has probably gone against the head - from some perspectives - for Europe. Ireland gave a very strong and clear decision in respect of the fiscal stability treaty, the people of Greece made a very clear decision in respect of their view on the kind of government which should hold power in their country and the people of France made a clear decision in the context of bestowing an overall majority on President Hollande. In addition, we had the first movement in a bailout for Spanish banks amounting to €100 billion. Obviously, this did not solve the problem. The Deputy will be aware that €3 billion in Spanish 12 and 18-month bills issued this morning at 5.07% and 5.1%, respectively. In comparison, the rates achieved at the auctions in May were 2.98% and 3.30%.
The issues that have been raised here are extremely serious and sensitive in nature. Questions are being asked, not only by the United States but also by Canada, India and China, as to what is going to be the response from the eurozone countries. Within the range of issues the Deputy mentioned, it is necessary to consider what can be achieved in the short, medium and long terms. It has been my view for some time that giving the ESM a licensed facility to inject money directly into the banking system is important. Equally important is the separation of the sovereign from the banking crisis. That is an issue which could have been addressed in this country a number of years ago but it was not.
Fiscal union is not going to be achieved in the shorter term. It is clear that there is vehement opposition on the part of many countries to elements of fiscal union. We have made it very clear that we would support, in principle, a banking union. In my view, such a union could be achieved in a relatively short time if the political will exists. However, as I informed the Deputy on previous occasions, there are 17 different governments - with one bank - and they all have their own opinions. As far as Ireland is concerned, we have obviously been working for quite some time with our colleagues and counterparts in the troika in respect of a re-engineering of the promissory note. Deputy Martin will be aware that the troika is finalising its technical paper on this matter. The negotiations to which I refer are continuing.
The agenda for next week's meeting has not been drafted and it will not be drafted until the G20 and the G8 conclude their deliberations in Mexico. A two-day ECOFIN meeting will take place this week. I assume the questions the Deputy has raised will, in part, be included on the agenda for that meeting.
The Taoiseach is on his own today.
I did not really receive a reply to the question I asked regarding the Government's position on the fundamental changes that have been articulated. The Taoiseach stated that the agenda has not be specified by President Van Rompuy. However, all analysts are stating that said agenda is quite straightforward, namely, how can we save the euro. There is also a question relating to the steps that can be taken at the summit to give some confidence to the markets that the euro can be saved. The matters to which the Taoiseach referred - the referendum on the fiscal stability treaty, the failed bailout relating to the Spanish banks and the elections in Greece and France - have had no impact on the central question facing us in respect of the sustainability and survival of the euro. The two big issues relating to the euro relate to Italy and Spain. In that context, consideration must be given to the steps that can be taken in respect of ensuring a sustainable confidence in the capacity of the European Union-----
A question, please.
-----and eurozone countries to solve this problem.
It is time the Government published a paper on this matter, outlining its position on a number of fundamental questions. I ask that it publish such a paper because I am of the view that such questions are going to come our way sooner than the Taoiseach thinks. We need to be honest and up-front with the people and outline the relevant issues for them in a transparent fashion. It should not be a case of the four wise men on the committee coming in behind the scrum and of the issues eventually being articulated for the public. Will the Taoiseach publish a paper in respect of the Government's position on Europe? Will he indicate what issues he has put on the agenda, from an Irish perspective, for next week's meeting?
It is great to hear the Deputy say that people should be honest and up-front about this matter. Do I not recall that it was the philosophy of the Government of which he was a member to state that this was the cheapest bailout in history? Remember that? Does the Deputy remember the fact that people did not even realise that the IMF had arrived on our shores? Of course we should be honest and up-front with the people.
Does the Taoiseach remember Roscommon? The Taoiseach was flushed out in respect of that matter.
Roscommon is different to the IMF.
The legacy problem here is quite convoluted. We have made some significant changes by means of renegotiation of the memorandum of understanding since last year. Deputy Martin is quite right. The result of the election in Greece-----
Answer the question.
-----represents a clear signal from the Greek people as to where they see their place, namely, as part of the eurozone. The result in the French election was also very clear. However, these have not have an impact on the banking crisis. I have made the point before that this is a banking crisis within the eurozone.
I thought the Taoiseach stated previously that it was somebody else's crisis.
What is required, therefore, is a European response at a political level. The Deputy is well aware, from all of the reports and analysis to which he refers, of the range of difference that exists. Some analysts want the sovereign to be separated from the banking debt and we support that suggestion. Others want the ESM to be licensed to inject money directly into banks and we also support this suggestion. I was one of the first to put this suggestion forward.
Ireland continues to seek a re-engineering of the promissory note that was drafted in the way that it was. The Deputy is aware that this note requires the Government to produce or borrow €3 billion per year. The first element of this has, admittedly through a convoluted process, been put out to 2025. We are not happy with that as an end result. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, this is a medium-term project and I do not expect answers in respect of it by next week.
It is important to say that the statements made by Commissioner Rehn and the IMF are important in the context of Ireland. It is not a case of publishing a paper. The various issues to which the Deputy referred all form part of the discussions and the need to deal with some is more immediate than is the case with others.
What is the country's position?
In the context of Ireland's position, what we want is a re-engineering of our promissory note. In so far as Europe and the eurozone are concerned, I would like adequate firewalls to be put in place. I would also like the structure of the ESM to be changed in order that it might inject money directly into the banking system.
That would require a referendum.
In addition, sovereign debt should be separated from banking debt because the position in this regard is leading to economies being dragged down.
A referendum would be required in order to alter the structure of the ESM.
If we proceed down the road of eventual fiscal union, clearly their will be implications in the context of new treaties.
I was referring to the ESM.
A referendum would not be needed in that regard.
The domiciliary allowance is a monthly payment made to families with children who have disabilities so severe that they require care, attention or supervision substantially in excess of that required by other children of the same age. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that this morning, parents from the Domiciliary Care Allowance, DCA, Warriors group travelled to the Dáil to raise again the issue of allowances for the families of children with disabilities. When they arrived, they invited him and his Government to walk a mile in their children's shoes. I applaud them for their campaigning work on these issues. I want the Taoiseach to explain to the Dáil why the Government felt it necessary to write to the thousands of families in receipt of this payment and to place the payment under threat. He should be aware of the real anxiety and worry the review letters that were sent out have caused.
The stress to which I refer is added to by the unfairness relating to and lack of transparency in the decision-making process used to award the allowance in the first instance. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, announced last month that she would review this process. I welcome that development. When will the review be completed? Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that while the process is under way, no parent or child will have the domiciliary care allowance cut off?
This allowance is paid at the rate of €309.50 per month. The rate has not been reduced by the Government and it is not intended to reduce it. The State pays domiciliary care allowance to parents and guardians to recognise the role they play in bringing up their children. It was introduced in the 1970s in recognition of the extra care and attention many parents provided for children with a severe disability who were cared for in their own homes. Responsibility remained with the health boards and the HSE until April 2009 when it was transferred to the then Department of Social and Family Affairs and the scheme was put on a statutory footing. Domiciliary care allowance is a monthly payment to the parent or guardian of a child who requires care, attention or supervision substantially in excess of that required for other children. The allowance has not been reduced by the Government. Last May the Minister did say she proposed to carry out a policy review. The proposed terms of reference have been set out by the Minister who will bring a memo to the Cabinet shortly. It is her intention, once the membership of the group is finalised, to get the review under way as soon as possible. The first meeting will take place around the middle of July and monthly meetings will be held thereafter until the end of the year. This is a serious and sensitive matter. As such, the Minister has been careful in her comments about the requirements of the review and how it is to be carried out. It is also important to say there was no reduction in the domiciliary care allowance of €309.50 payable in respect of each child.
As ever, the Taoiseach has not answered my questions. The matter is not the rate at which the allowance is payable but the awarding of it. I hope the Taoiseach is aware of the considerable distress caused to families throughout the country by letters referring to a review of the award of the allowance. I note that the Taoiseach has accepted that the process by which the allowance is awarded is flawed, lacks transparency and must be reformed. Meanwhile, he must provide some level of reassurance for families with children who have severe disabilities that their payment is not under threat. I ask him to make that commitment. Meanwhile, the review of the process is under way. Will the Taoiseach make a commitment that no family will have the domiciliary care payment withdrawn? That is a straightforward question to which he must give a straightforward answer.
Yes or no.
All social welfare allowance are granted under certain conditions and eligibility terms. The same applies to every allowance from the Department of Social Protection. If evidence comes to light that a person is drawing unemployment assistance or benefit or any other allowance contrary to the conditions, that carries its own repercussions.
Is there a suggestion that is happening?
The Taoiseach should withdraw that implication. That is not the issue.
That is not what I am saying.
I am offended by the Taoiseach's implications.
Will Deputy Martin, please, resume his seat?
This is not his question. It was raised by Deputy McDonald.
Exactly.
Every allowance issued by the Department of Social Protection-----
We are all aware of that. The Taoiseach should answer the question asked.
There is no reason for any allowance to be changed until there is a policy change.
The numbers have been cut back.
Last May the Minister set out a proposal to have a review of the policy of the domiciliary care allowance. There has been no reduction in the payment of €309.50.
That is not the issue.
We are receiving letters from parents.
In fact, 6,000 extra allowances have been granted. That is an extra 2,000, net, since 2009, with 40% of parents receiving carer's allowance also.
Why can the Taoiseach not simply reassure families that their payment will not be removed while the Minister's process is under way?
The Deputy has had her say. Will she, please, allow the Taoiseach to reply? She is not allowed to interrupt in that way.
I had expected an answer to a question.
This is more of Sinn Féin's crazy economics.
The Minister has set out her intention to have the review process commence by mid-July and monthly meetings will take place until the review is completed towards the end of the year. There is no reason to believe the domiciliary care allowance will be taken from anyone or reduced pending completion of the policy review. I hope I make myself clear.
Therefore, no family will lose its payment while the process is under way.
There will be no reduction. There is no intention to reduce anyone's payment.
What about removal of the payment?
The Minister is carrying out a review, starting in mid-July, with monthly meetings taking place. I do not see any reason for anyone's allowance to be reduced until the review is completed and we see what it shows up.
We are talking about a withdrawal, not a reduction.
I hope the Taoiseach was not suggesting applicants for domiciliary care allowance were making fraudulent claims.
Certainly not.
That would be an outrageous thing to suggest.
Since the Government introduced the hated and unjust household charge, there has been an unprecedented campaign of mass boycott and resistance to this attempt to impose further unjust austerity on ordinary people. Last week even the IMF had to acknowledge the scale of the popular campaign of opposition to the hated household charge and suggest the Government address issues of fairness in its policies. At the weekend even Labour Party backbenchers started to get the jitters when they heard the outrageous suggestion the Government was thinking of circumventing the boycott campaign by taking the successor property tax directly from people's pay packets through the PAYE system. This suggestion blows apart the Government claim that the planned property charge has anything to do with equity or fairness. It is just another tax on workers.
Why does the Taoiseach not admit that the Government's efforts to impose household charges and property taxes on ordinary working people are a shambles? They are not wanted by the people, are unjust and should be completely abandoned.
The charge has been paid by 75% of people.
On 18 July, the last sitting day of the Dáil before the summer recess, a national demonstration called for by the campaign against household and water charges will take place at Leinster House. Why does the Taoiseach not save thousands of ordinary people the trouble of buying bus and train tickets to Dublin on that date by telling them he is abandoning the household charge or any property charge aimed at low and middle income families?
The Deputy may get a big soapbox on that day.
The Minister of State is getting jittery.
Deputy Boyd Barrett should be ashamed, as a legislator, to come into the House which passes the laws of the land and in which Members have their say for and against to encourage people deliberately to break the law. Were the minority who have not yet paid the household charge to do so, the Minister for Social Protection and everyone else would find it easier to deal with sensitive cases. The Deputy who has been elected in the same way as everyone else chooses to tell people deliberately to break the law. He should be ashamed of himself. He has decided to have his national march which he seems to need as a monthly fix on 18 July. He should not assume the Dáil will rise for the summer recess on that date. He might be speaking in Molesworth Street on that day, but he might find the Dáil will sit for a further period. I would be careful about that if I were he. The memorandum of understanding and the troika agreement in respect of the country's programme require that a value tax on property be introduced.
The Taoiseach said he would renegotiate. He tells us every day that he is in negotiations.
I will not speculate beyond this. The Government set up a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Don Thornhill who has furnished his report to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government who has a responsibility and a duty to reflect on the issues raised in the report and bring a memo to the Government. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has a responsibility and a duty to reflect on the issues raised in the report and to bring his memo to Government.
He is gone on holidays.
When the memo comes to Government, it will make a decision in its own time.
When laws are unjust, as people such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood very well-----
Deputy Boyd Barrett should not forget himself.
-----it is justified and legitimate to resist such unjust laws. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary working people and families in this country have been unable or unwilling to pay the household charge because they are crippled by austerity and understand the injustice of such a charge when multimillionaires are asked-----
Could we have a question, please, from the Deputy?
-----to pay only the same amount as people who are on social welfare or on low and middle incomes.
Does Deputy Boyd Barrett put himself in that category?
Why does the Taoiseach not address the substantial issue raised by the huge popular boycott of the household charge?
Deputy "Boycott".
It is now acknowledged by the IMF that ordinary people cannot and should not have to take any more pain of this unjust kind.
Could the Deputy put his question, please?
Why does the Taoiseach not accept that the household charge was wrong and that property charges that are levied on ordinary working people are unfair?
This is not a time for speeches; this is time for a question.
Instead, such taxes should be levied on high income earners-----
The Deputy did not hear me.
-----those earning more than €100,000 or on multimillionaires, not on working people who are already crucified with the austerity the Government and the previous Government have imposed on them.
Deputy Boyd Barrett will give himself a hernia.
I am not sure what tablets Deputy Boyd Barrett took today but for him to equate himself or put himself in the mix with Gandhi and Martin Luther King is a bridge too far.
It is the people.
For someone who has espoused a Trotskyite philosophy for a long time, it is another bridge too far to hear him praising the IMF.
Even it understood that it was unfair.
He should please understand that coming from a constituency that gave the second highest vote in the country in favour of the fiscal stability treaty that his ranting and hysterical incantations on the pier in Dún Laoghaire fell on deaf ears. We live in the land of reality.
Deputy Boyd Barrett was elected by the people.
People in this country clearly understand that we are spending far more than we are taking in and that people must make a contribution -----
That is not true.
-----towards services for every person in the community.
What aspect of it is not true?
What about all the interest on the debt?
What the Government wants to see is that the contributions are fair, equitable and affordable with the intention of providing services for people to which they are properly entitled.
The IMF said they were not fair.
Deputy Boyd Barrett comes to the House as an elected person in respect of laws-----
What about Deputy Durkan and the farmers?
What did Deputy Finian McGrath say?
-----a majority of people strongly support, that are to provide facilities for all our people. That is something he should examine in terms of his responsibilities.
What about Deputy Durkan and the farmers in jail? He is a jail bird.
We had statements from a Deputy last week on deliberate non-payment of other forms of tax.
Deputy Durkan was breaking the law.
Deputy Boyd Barrett goes around the country telling people deliberately to break the law, which is designed to be fair, equitable, affordable and in people's interests.
In the same way that Deputy Durkan broke the law.
Deputy Boyd Barrett should be ashamed of himself.
Deputy Durkan broke the law and he was in jail. He did time for the farmers.
It was a good cause.
I agree, it was a good cause.