Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 2014

Vol. 831 No. 1

Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)

Cabinet Committee Meetings

Gerry Adams

Question:

1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears and credit availability will next meet. [47672/13]

Gerry Adams

Question:

2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears and credit availability last met; the number of meetings that have been held in the past year. [52532/13]

Joe Higgins

Question:

3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when was the last time the Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears and credit availability met; and when it is scheduled to reconvene. [7497/14]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

The Cabinet committee on mortgage arrears and credit availability met on 20 January 2014 and has met on nine occasions since January 2013. I anticipate that it will meet again in March.

I call Deputy McDonald on behalf of Deputy Adams.

The Taoiseach has told us that the committee has met nine times since 2013. I would like him to confirm that.

That is correct.

It met in January and the Taoiseach proposes that it will meet again in March. That does not suggest any great sense of urgency on the part of the Cabinet in respect of this issue. According to the Central Bank's figures more than 140,000 families are in arrears but those figures do not include buy-to-let properties. It seems to me the Government has made no real impact on reducing the numbers of families experiencing mortgage distress. For instance, in September 2009 the number of families in arrears for more than 90 days was approximately 3.3%. The latest statistics show that this figure has increased to 12.9%. Rather than having a solution to this matter we are seeing an escalation of the crisis for families and householders across the State.

The number doubled in the last 18 months of the previous government and it has doubled again in the first two years of this Administration. A research paper by the Central Bank analyst, Yvonne McCarthy, states that three-quarters of all homes in mortgage arrears have at least one person in employment. That is interesting because it means that mortgage distress touches not just those thousands of unemployed people but also those in work. Ms McCarthy notes further that when one examines the figures, employment is not always secure. That raises all sorts of issues concerning security of employment, the misuse of flexible work arrangements and zero-hour contracts.

The Taoiseach amended the Land and Conveyancing Act in such a manner as to leave home-owners at the mercy of banks when the threat of repossession looms. The code of conduct on mortgage arrears has removed some of the protections the code originally offered to home owners. There are also issues around the personal insolvency regime, which was much lauded by the Taoiseach. For many people, however, it is not fit for purpose.

Perhaps we could have a question.

This does not add up to a confident scenario. Why is this Cabinet committee not meeting until March? Is there not an argument for more regular meetings? What is being done to add a new dynamic and urgency to dealing with this issue? The Taoiseach has said time out of number, both here and elsewhere, that this is one of the great crises facing our people.

If this is one of the great crises facing our people, we do not deduce it from the record of meetings and the actions of the Government.

I am more interested in taking decisions and action rather than just having meetings. We tend to meet on a monthly basis and devote one Monday in the month to seven or eight Cabinet sub-committee meetings. They start at eight in the morning and go through the day. That is why the committee will meet again in March. It is sometimes interfered with by requirements to attend meetings elsewhere.

The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 has been passed and the legislation introduced three new forms of non-judicial debt settlement arrangement. The Act also reduces the automatic discharge period of bankruptcy from 12 years to three years. The Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI, was established to regulate the new debt settlement arrangements and it is open to accept applications from applicants in September 2013. As of February, there are 111 personal insolvency practitioners who develop debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements. These are two of the debt solutions. There are also 63 individuals capable of acting as approved intermediaries who can develop a debt relief notice. The insolvency service has indicated that there are hundreds of cases in the pipeline at different stages of verification by the ISI before it can be forwarded to the court for a decision. The court may issue a protective certificate, which offers debtors legal protection for a period of 70 days, during which time an arrangement between the creditor or creditors and the insolvent debtor can be put together. To date, two debt relief notices, two debt settlement arrangements and one personal insolvency arrangements have been approved. There is, as yet, no definitive evidence of any banks vetoing proposals. There is some evidence that some banks are trying to reach arrangements with clients short of entering into a formal insolvency process. Banks are clearly becoming more focused in their attempts to reduce the mortgage arrears book and the existence of the ISI is helping as a catalyst in this process.

Since March 2013, the Central Bank has set quarterly targets for six banks to make offers of sustainable solutions, and I mean sustainable solutions, to customers with arrears in excess of 90 days. These banks are Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland, Permanent TSB, Ulster Bank, ACC Bank and KBC Bank. The Central Bank has conducted an audit of the banks quarter 2 2013 results and found the banks have achieved their targets for sustainable solutions of 20% of those in arrears for 90 days or more. At the end of September 2013, the lenders in total report that they had issued proposals to 43% of mortgage accounts in arrears, as against a target of 30%. The Central Bank will shortly make undertaken audit of the banks progress against quarter 3 and quarter 4 targets for 2013.

The introduction of the mortgage to rent scheme, which facilitates families to stay in their homes through the transfer of ownership to a local authority or an approved housing body is another issue. To date, almost 1,975 cases have been put forward by the lenders and, of these, 1,360 are being followed through.

Is that mortgage to rent?

In addition, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, announced a new €20 million fund to allow local authorities to offer the mortgage to rent scheme to local authority mortgage holders with unsustainable mortgages.

Deputy McDonald also mentioned arrears. The total number of mortgage accounts in arrears has fallen by 5,833 between August and December of last year. The number of mortgage accounts in arrears of greater than 90 days has fallen from 82,624 to 79,782, a drop of 2,842 compared to the end of August. The number of total temporary restructures continues to fall and this indicates a move towards greater utilisation of permanent solutions. The total number of permanent restructures has risen by 9,952 up to December. There has been a significant rise in the split mortgages arrangements, from 2,500 to 6,239. The Central Bank mortgage arrears statistics reinforces the picture of a gradual improvement, although not as quick as one would like. Figures for quarter 3 to end of September in 2013 show that the number of mortgage accounts for principal dwelling houses in arrears fell from 142,892, or 18.5% of the total stock, to 141,520. That is the first decrease since the Central Bank series began in September 2009.

Deputy McDonald mentioned mortgages being sold to portfolio buyers and suggested they would not be regulated by the code of conduct on mortgage arrears, CCMA, of the Central Bank. The Deputy is aware that the sale process for the IBRC residential mortgages is currently under way. The final bidding date is 14 March 2014 and the continued application of the Central Bank code of conduct on mortgage arrears in respect of the IBRC residential mortgage portfolio depends upon the regulatory status of who acquires the portfolio at the end. In 2012, GE Money sold its residential portfolio of approximately 3,500 mortgages to the Australian company Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland). As the group acquired the entire servicing platform from GE Money, the acquired entity remains regulated and CCMA continues to apply to the transaction. In December 2013, Lloyds Banking Group sold its Irish residential portfolio of 2,000 mortgages to Apollo Global Management. Apollo Global Management met the Central Bank and the Department and indicated clearly that it intended to voluntarily adopt the CCMA to manage the acquired loans. Apollo Global Management believes following CCMA is in the best interests of both and forms part of its core strategy. The Minister for Finance is aware of the concerns of borrowers about the sale of mortgage books to funds not covered by the CCMA. The Minister has instructed his Department to examine the issue in consultation with the Central Bank with a view to bringing forward a solution. Given that it is a complex legal issue, it requires careful consideration so as not to put at risk the application of the code of conduct. We will not know the regulatory status of the ultimate acquirer of the portfolio until the sale process is concluded. The outcome will determine whether we need to do anything. The Fianna Fáil Party proposes to make adherence to the CCMA a condition of the sales process but the insertion of such a condition is legally questionable as it leads to the erosion of the value of the assets from which all creditors must seek proceeds. The insertion of conditions that may erode the value would leave the special liquidators and the State open to challenge and possible compensation.

Under current laws, compliance with the CCMA is a necessary condition for lenders seeking to obtain court orders for repossessions of primary residences. The court will otherwise not allow it. I do not have figures to hand but the vast majority of repossessions have been voluntary. A number have gone down the court route but the vast majority have been voluntary. I can supply the Deputy with up-to-date figures.

The inescapable reality is that the Taoiseach has no real appreciation of the huge crisis and distress in the lives of so many of our people as a result of unsustainable mortgages. Over the ten-year criminal property bubble, a generation of young people were blackmailed into paying prices for the simple human right of a roof over their heads, the level of which has now imprisoned them. With the number of crisis mortgages having doubled under this Administration, as the previous Administration did, putting forward that it has reduced somewhat, to just 80,000, as a major step forward does not in any way recognise that these are 80,000 individuals, or often families, who are hugely distressed.

The Government has come up with no alternative of a sustainable variety that would provide a quick way out for those in distress. In his reply, the Taoiseach was at pains in referring to the 13,000 IBRC mortgages to look out for the interests of creditors, or in other words, the financiers that are involved. Their interests have always been put first.

Is the Taoiseach in any way ashamed that his Government is handing over 13,000 individuals and families to vulture funds from God knows where? Despite what he said, these people do not and will not have guarantees if the mortgages are bought by outside interests based in the United States. Is it not the case that those home owners could be subjected, for example, to increases in interest rates and put under intolerable pressure with regard to repossession by means of threats or debt collection agencies pursuing them if the vulture fund wants to change or implement a sell-off in the portfolio?

Is it not quite shocking that as far as the Fine Gael and Labour Government is concerned, the financial institutions, bondholders and the hedge funds which were up to their necks in creating the financial gambling casino that was the international financial markets in the ten or 15 years to 2008 - a cabal that reaped obscene profits on the backs of vulnerable mortgage holders-----

We cannot have speeches now, as this is Question Time.

They crashed the economy as a result but the Government is now handing over the victims of the crash for further torture to the very people who caused it. Does the Taoiseach not see a massive irony, to say the least, in that?

Some of the outlined solutions, such as split mortgages, are simply a matter of maintaining in bondage home owners into old age and even passing on the debts to their children. Is it not the case that a bold policy is required in the interests of our people rather than the financial markets? It should write down generally to today's prices the level of blackmail mortgage debt that people were forced to take, calibrate downwards monthly mortgage payments and give security to the people now in distress. It should also release hundreds of millions of euro per year into the domestic economy that would otherwise go into dead banks. It would be part of a process of rebooting the economy. Is that not the real issue? Has the Cabinet committee even discussed the IBRC mortgages or will the matter be discussed urgently in order to change the Government's implemented policy?

Before the Taoiseach replies, I should point out that these questions are purely statistical, requesting the number of times a Cabinet committee has met. The line Minister is responsible for policy. We cannot go on at this rate, as we have spent almost 20 minutes on three statistical questions when other Deputies have important questions. I ask people to recognise that these sorts of issues should be raised with line Ministers rather than during Question Time for the Taoiseach. I ask everybody to be conscious of that.

I remember when I used to sit where Deputy Martin is now and I would get no answer at all from the Government as there is no requirement to make any answer about Cabinet sub-committees. It is an important issue and I have indicated to Deputies that there can be a series of priority questions regarding particular issues.

With regard to Deputy Higgins's contribution, we are talking about the recovery of the economy. The number of people in work is increasing and the number of people on the live register has been decreasing for 20 consecutive months. That is helping a number of people get out of their mortgage difficulties and provide the opportunity to make progress. I have given the figures to Deputy McDonald. There is a modest recovery in house prices, so that will lessen negative equity, although it does not apply all over the country by any means. It is a small but welcome development.

Deputy Higgins is well aware that at the height of the so-called Celtic tiger we were building 100,000 houses when we needed 30,000 houses per year but we are now building 6,500 houses when we need 25,000 or 30,000 houses per year. To get to a point where we can catapult this goal into action, we must consider where planning permissions were issued that are not suitable for building, where other planning permissions are under consideration and the requirement for good contractors to be able to have a stream of income so as to develop a site and build houses. That requires a lending opportunity from a lender or lenders. There is clearly much pressure for detached and family houses in the greater Dublin area and that will be the focus of housing discussions here and at a special Cabinet meeting I called for next week.

The Deputy specifically mentioned the IBRC. There are legal requirements to maximise the returns in all these cases and at the end of May there were 17,411 residential loans in IBRC outstanding to 13,000 customers. Taxpayers have already incurred far too high a price from this bank and no further costs should be imposed on them. It is important to note that the special liquidators have confirmed that all borrowers are permitted to pay their mortgage at par value and there are no legislative barriers to that. If the bids received are not in excess of the valuation set out, the portfolio will be sold to NAMA. As I indicated to Deputy McDonald, in two previous cases in 2012 and 2013, the full compliance not only of the contracts applicable to the mortgages but also the extra code of conduct requirements set up by the Central Bank were adhered to. The latest interested group has stated clearly that it wishes to be regulated and voluntarily submitted to abide by the codes of conduct if it ends up completing the acquisition. That is the interests of everybody.

The position with regard to repossessions is very clear and I do not accept at all the Deputy's scaremongering tactics and argument that people will have investigators outside the back door telling them to move because the house is in negative equity or the mortgage holder is in arrears. If the bids are not received to value, NAMA will acquire these loans, and it complies completely with codes of conduct. Repossession is the last resort, and as I stated in response to an earlier questions, the vast majority of cases have been voluntarily submitted, as distinct from being a decision of the court. People make up their minds when they identify in their particular circumstances what is the best course of action.

As the Minister for Social Protection has often pointed out, the fact that a person in a household is working allows for a solution to be brought about. The banks have set targets to offer people sustainable solutions by the end of the year and we want to keep the pressure on. This will be the subject of discussions at our forthcoming meeting.

I will allow very quick supplementary questions from Deputies Martin and Boyd Barrett. They should relate purely to the statistical element. We cannot have a long discussion about policy.

I will not have such a discussion. When will the committee meet again to specifically discuss those 13,000 mortgage holders affected by the IBRC liquidation, as the Taoiseach has mentioned March? The vast majority of these are rank and file people and they are being thrown to the wolves. They are very insecure and anxious about this issue.

It is remiss of the Government not to have thought something through regarding this cohort of mortgage holders. In essence, their loans can be sold to concerns that will not be regulated by the Central Bank and that will not have obligations under the code of practice. When one talks to people, it seems that those higher up the scale get sorted out and looked after, while mortgage holders do not. Will the committee be meeting specifically on that issue in the very near future?

With regard to the meetings the Taoiseach has had or intends to have, will he offer clarification because I did not quite hear what he said? He mentioned a debate or discussion on housing. As he knows, I have called for such a debate for two years. Owing to the mortgage arrears crisis and the potential for people to lose their homes or not to sustain their mortgages, something must be done urgently to provide affordable housing. Council housing-----

We are not moving on to affordable housing.

Will the Taoiseach clarify when the discussion by the committee will happen? Will it happen in the Dáil? Has the committee discussed the potential implications of the winding up of the mortgage interest supplement scheme and how it may take more people into mortgage arrears? What will be done about it?

Many people in the mortgage arrears resolution process – I received a letter about it this morning – are saying they are finding it extremely difficult to engage with the banks. One person who wrote to me had engaged an accountant to try to represent him before his bank in regard to updating his mortgage arrears resolution process agreement. He had adhered to it fully, but it was coming to the time of expiration and he was trying to renegotiate it. The accountant received a letter from the Central Bank stating it would not deal with the person's representative because he was not approved.

The Deputy cannot proceed with this.

This seems to run contrary to what the Central Bank is supposed to be doing, namely, assisting people in mortgage distress in dealing with the banks, rather than backing up the banks against mortgage holders.

The Central Bank is the client’s own bank. Obviously, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has made quite a number of significant changes to the way we are dealing with the live register. The extent of mortgage interest payments - a figure of 50,000 comes to mind - was so high as to keep people out of work, despite the fact that getting them into work is the priority of the Government. I do not want to set out what the agenda of any Cabinet committee should be, nor am I entitled to say. Clearly, however, the discussion centred around these issues and the need to require banks to get on with offering sustainable solutions to people with mortgage problems or in mortgage arrears or distress. The targets I have set out have been met.

In the two cases I have mentioned, in 2012, GE Money acquired 3,500 mortgages and complied fully with the code of conduct and the contractual obligations. The same applied in the case of Lloyds. It acquired 2,000 mortgages. It sold its mortgages to Apollo Global Management and voluntarily committed to honouring the codes of conduct set down by the Central Bank. The Minister for Finance has been very clear about this. It is a complex issue which warrants careful consideration. The Minister has written to the Central Bank outlining his concerns. If the bids do not reach the valuation, they pass to NAMA. NAMA complies fully with both the contractual obligations and codes of conduct set down by the Central Bank. As stated, repossession is the last thought in anybody's mind. The objective is to work out a solution in each case.

Cabinet Committee Meetings

Gerry Adams

Question:

4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet committee on health has met since the budget. [47678/13]

Micheál Martin

Question:

5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet committee on health has met since the October budget. [2190/14]

Gerry Adams

Question:

6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on health last met. [2242/14]

Gerry Adams

Question:

7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet committee on health has met in the past 12 months. [2243/14]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

8. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the most recent meeting of the Cabinet committee on health took place. [6348/14]

Joe Higgins

Question:

9. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the last time the Cabinet committee on health met; and when it is scheduled to reconvene. [7496/14]

As this is a statistical question, the supplementary questions should be based on that fact.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.

In the past 12 months the Cabinet committee on health met nine times and has met on three occasions since the October budget. It last met on 20 January and is due to meet again next Monday, 24 February.

When the committee last met, was the issue of free GP care on the agenda? I am sure the Taoiseach is aware of the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, who stated the Government's promised free GP care scheme might have charges attached. This runs contrary to the commitment of the Minister for Health that "free" will mean "free" and the commitment in the programme for Government to have universal primary care, whereby fees for GP care would be removed within the Government's term of office. Is the Taoiseach considering attaching a fee to the free GP scheme at the point of access? What might the fee be?

That is a matter for the Minister for Health. This question should be to the Minister for Health.

The Minister of State also said a fee was necessary in order that people would not go to their general practitioner too often.

Put a question to the Minister for Health on this issue.

Does the Taoiseach share that view? Is it his intention to attach a fee to the scheme for under-sixes, removing the-----

This is ridiculous.

I am conscious that it is a year since the apology the Taoiseach made to the women of the Magdalen laundries.

For goodness sake, Deputy, we are really straying. I am not allowing this. It is unfair to everybody else who has tabled a question in that we will never reach some questions. Question No. 33, for example, relates to a discussion that took place on 19 December and we have yet to get to it. We will never get to these questions if we stray into every matter concerning health and mortgages. I cannot allow it and it would be grossly unfair of me to do so. I direct the Deputy to the question asked by Deputy Gerry Adams, that is, when the health committee last met.

At that rate, the Taoiseach need simply to stand up and say the committee met six times.

Exactly. In that case, the Deputy will have received her answer to the question. This is Question Time; it is not a debate.

While this is not the Ceann Comhairle's fault, it is very restrictive.

I am seeking to ask a question.

Yes, but it must be related to the question tabled. The question sought the number of times the committee had met. It is not about policy. The Deputy is not entitled to ask about what went on at the committee.

The Taoiseach made the apology to the Magdalen women.

That has nothing to do with the question.

Commitments were made publicly in respect of the health of the women concerned, some of whom subsequently died. None of these commitments-----

In that case, the Deputy should table a question.

With respect, I am sick to my back teeth tabling parliamentary questions and being fobbed off on this issue.

The Deputy is not being fobbed off because the question is about the number of times the committee met.

I am putting it to the man who made the apology to the women concerned and who is on the front line in guaranteeing the commitments made to them are honoured. When precisely will these commitments be met, specifically in so far as they relate to health care? I trust that the Taoiseach can answer that question.

No; he cannot answer it.

Why can he not do so?

Because it is not in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House; it is as simple as that. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the number of times a committee had met and the Taoiseach answered.

The next question is by Deputy Micheál Martin and the same principle applies.

I have no doubt about that. The Taoiseach has stated the committee met nine times since the October budget. I believe he has said the committee is due to meet again in the next two weeks.

On 24 February.

There is a very acrimonious debate, through anonymous briefings in the media, between the Minister for Health and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on the forthcoming White Paper on health. When will the health committee of the Cabinet meet specifically to discuss this issue? Will it be meeting to ensure the White Paper will give specific details on how much individual families will have to pay under the new system? Will there be a specific meeting on that issue, given the acrimony between the two Ministers? As the Taoiseach knows, the Minister for Health is saying nobody will pay more, that everything will cost less and that services will be expanded. I do not believe anybody believes this. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach gave me a straight answer.

The White Paper is due to be published in a couple of weeks. It will deal with the changes in the structures that are required to introduce universal health insurance. That will not happen overnight. The White Paper will not provide details of individual costings because what is involved here is the level of charges that might be applied by insurance companies in regard to health a couple of years hence. There are issues which are clear and must be discussed regarding cost containment, the level of subvention that will apply in respect of particular packages and the range of medical packages that will be on offer from the insurance companies. These are all complex matters to be discussed. When the White Paper is published it will not individualise costings per package, because that is work that must take place over the next 18 months to two years.

I can confirm that there were no acrimonious debates between Ministers. Obviously, this is a matter of fundamental importance for future health care and the delivery of health services for years in the future. It will be discussed not only at the Cabinet sub-committee but also by the Cabinet.

Will it be published in two weeks?

It will be published in a couple of weeks.

What does "a couple" mean?

A couple could mean three or four, perhaps. It will be within a few weeks.

The Taoiseach has been saying it will be a couple of weeks for the last few months.

Yes, I know.

It is a long couple.

The Deputy knows as well as I do that when one has the last full stop put in place, one finds there is another inclusion or addition to be made. It is a couple of weeks, but I can give the Deputy more up-to-date information about it later.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

If the Taoiseach can answer that, he could answer my question.

A lot of work has been done in that respect. I advise the Deputy to send an e-mail.

The Deputy should put down a parliamentary question and she will get an answer.

You could have advised Deputy Martin of the same thing.

The question is not even in the Deputy's name. I am just obliging you.

That is very good of you, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you so much. To oblige somebody elected to this House by allowing them to speak - it is magnificent.

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett. You should learn the rules of the House before being too smart with me, Deputy. If you wish to be smart with me, I will be twice as smart-----

The rules should be evenly applied.

Put down a motion for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Government's pre-election promises on health included free general practitioner, GP, care for all, universal health insurance, UHI, and dealing with the crisis in our accident and emergency departments. All of these promises appear to be in the process of being pushed over the horizon of the next general election and disappearing into smoke. Will the Taoiseach arrange for the sub-committee on health to have a discussion on whether it is the case that all the pre-election promises to sort out our crisis-ridden health service are being shunted off until after the next general election? Following that meeting, will he clarify whether that is the case for the Irish public and this House? Are those promises now being abandoned? The Government cannot even manage to implement the free GP care for children under five years of age, not to mind provide it to everybody, or to sort out the universal health insurance, given the row that appears to be erupting between the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister. After the next meeting of this sub-committee, will we get clarity on those matters? People need that clarity.

Part of the process of the introduction of UHI is the introduction of free GP cards for children under five years of age. It is the first part of the process. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, has been very diligent in pursuing that and, as has already been announced, €37 million was allocated for it this year. This is not disappearing into smoke and is not being shunted out beyond the horizon. I made it clear on many occasions that universal health insurance cannot be introduced until the end of the term of this Government because we must deal with all the issues mentioned in Deputy Martin's question, such as cost containment, demographics and the range of the medical packages that will be provided by the insurance companies.

Will it happen before the next general election?

That work is serious and ongoing. The White Paper on UHI will set out those structures. The work afterwards on the details, costings and range of medical care packages that will be provided by the insurance companies is a matter for very close scrutiny and consultation over the next two years. The Deputy should not be misled by what he might be reading. There is no intention of-----

I just seek clarity and a timeline.

-----resiling from what is a fundamental part of the programme for Government.

The Taoiseach's so-called fair care system and universal health insurance involves handing over inordinate power to private health insurers in our health service. When the Taoiseach produces his legislative proposals they will be hugely opposed by a substantial cohort of people in this country.

I have a short question. When the Cabinet sub-committee on health meets, does it meet on specific issues relating to the health service, or does it have an overall report in general at every meeting? I did not think the Minister for Social Protection, who is beside the Taoiseach, had become the Minister for Health now in an advisory capacity to the Taoiseach. At the next meeting of the committee, will the Taoiseach make a particular issue of the crisis in speech and language therapy for children? It is a huge issue on which we receive representations from distressed parents on a weekly basis. There are very serious issues with regard to the development of young children. Will the Taoiseach put that down as a matter of urgency for extra resources to ensure an immediate ending of the waiting lists?

Official Engagements

Gerry Adams

Question:

10. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent talks with former US President Bill Clinton during his visit to Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47684/13]

Micheál Martin

Question:

11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the issues he discussed with Mr. Bill Clinton when he met him recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47757/13]

Joe Higgins

Question:

12. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Mr. Bill Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7495/14]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.

On 9 October 2013, I had an informal meeting with former US President Bill Clinton, who was visiting Dublin to attend an event organised by Philanthropy Ireland. The President is a very good friend of Ireland and is keenly interested in our progress, so I took the opportunity to update him on a range of issues in which he remains keenly interested.

President Clinton, of course, has been a major influence on the Northern Ireland peace process over the years, so I updated him on the current situation in Northern Ireland, including the talks process chaired by Richard Haass, which was still in its early stages at that point. President Clinton has also provided valuable assistance to Ireland during our economic difficulties. In February 2012, for example, he hosted the "Invest In Ireland" round-table event in New York, which I attended. This was a valuable opportunity to engage with investors and to promote Ireland as a location for investment.

Our meeting on 9 October was a good opportunity to update President Clinton on Ireland's progress towards economic recovery. He had a particular interest in this. We also discussed political and economic developments in the US. The main reason for President Clinton's visit to Dublin was to support Philanthropy Ireland, and we discussed recent progress with Ireland's objective of increasing the level of philanthropic giving.

President Clinton also updated me on the work of the Clinton Foundation. I was pleased to learn about the progress the Clinton Foundation is making in tackling issues such as HIV-AIDS, health access, development, climate change and child health and nutrition. We also discussed Ireland's very successful partnership with the foundation through the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Ireland has partnered with the Clinton Health Access Initiative in Africa since 2003 and supports HIV-AIDS programmes in Mozambique and Lesotho, as well as programmes to improve maternal and child health and child nutrition. This was essentially the range of our conversation. I again took the opportunity to thank President Clinton for his ongoing support for Ireland over the years.

As the Taoiseach said, President Clinton has been a friend to Ireland over many years, not least in respect of the Irish peace process. The Taoiseach said he briefed the President on what was, at that time, the early stages of the Richard Haass negotiations. Can I ask the Taoiseach, if I am allowed to, where the Government stands regarding the outcome of those negotiations?

There is a marked reluctance, in some cases a downright refusal on the part of unionism, and by that I mean the political leadership of unionism, to embrace the opportunity that the Haass process represents. I think it very unfortunate, if one is to judge by some media commentary, that the American system has taken umbrage at the perhaps discourteous or even dismissive attitude of some towards Richard Haass and the outcomes of the process. That is deeply unfortunate. It certainly is not the disposition of my party. We see within those proposals real potential to deal with issues that are very difficult for parties on all sides. Will the Taoiseach comment on the Haass process and where he considers it stands now?

Did the Taoiseach have any discussion with President Clinton on immigration reform and the issues faced by so many Irish people living in the United States who work there and have made their homes, lives and families there? Immigration is an issue of some controversy in the United States. It is a complex issue but it is one in which we have an enormous stake and it is one which we would wish to see resolved.

The Taoiseach is correct to commend the work not least in respect of HIV-AIDS that is carried out. Like everyone else I am very proud of the fact that this country has such a strong track record on those matters. Those partnerships should continue.

We had discussions in the House on the conclusion of the Haass talks. We expressed disappointment that it was not possible to get agreement on the flags, parades and the past, but it is important to note that the Haass talks provide a basis for making further progress. As Deputy McDonald is well aware, that is not an easy issue. While her party agreed that the conclusion of the talks process should be endorsed, others did not. The talks were hosted on the invitation of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to Dr. Haass and his team. The five parties did engage pretty well during the two short periods in which they discussed matters. The process did not work out. I am pleased to note that at least the parties continue to follow through by having a series of meetings on how matters might be progressed. The Government is more than willing to support and assist in whatever progress can be made. The talks were not hosted by the Government or the British Government but we are very supportive of every little piece of progress that can be made in that regard. The Tánaiste spoke to the Secretary of State recently and also to Dr. Haass.

I did discuss with the President the question of immigration. I hope to raise the matter again when I have the opportunity to travel to Washington in March. A great deal of activity is going on in the United States. I commend Ambassador Anderson on the number of meetings she has had both with representatives in the Senate and in the Congress on the matter. It boils down to what will happen in the US House of Representatives. President Obama and the US Senate have laid out their position very clearly. I cannot say what will happen with the House of Representatives but meetings are taking place. The general hope is that things could happen on immigration in 2014. We are approaching the last two years of this presidency for President Obama and in that sense there is an understanding that immigration has a major impact in the United States given the number involved. For our part, we will certainly engage with the immigration reform group and the Irish connections. There are 50,000 young Irish people in particular who are undocumented. It is a small segment of a very big pool but we would be hopeful that progress could be made. We discussed the matter and President Clinton is hopeful. President Obama and the Senate are also hopeful and now it is a matter for the House of Representatives. Elections are coming up later in the year and that might well impact on what action is taken. I will raise the matter again with the leaders and groups I hope to meet when I go to the United States. In so far as that is concerned, we will keep Irish interests very much alive and to the fore. I hope to mention it specifically to President Obama when I have the opportunity to speak with him.

Could the Taoiseach confirm who attended the meeting? Was it just the Taoiseach and President Clinton or were others at the meeting as well?

On the briefing the Taoiseach gave on Northern Ireland, Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan came to Northern Ireland but the failure to reach agreement was very disappointing to all concerned and reflected badly on the main parties in the Executive. These issues are going on a long time, in particular the parades issue and flags and emblems. There have been many false dawns. There is an obligation on the main parties in the Executive to fulfil the commitments they gave a long time ago on those issues.

The British and Irish Governments need to become more involved than has been the case. They are standing back a bit too far from the fray. The dangers that can develop are very real in terms of the communities in the North and the potential of the issues to create more disturbances on the streets, as we witnessed at the outset when the issues came back onto the agenda in terms of the flags dispute, protests on the streets and the threats to people in their homes. We do not want to go back to that. I wonder at the toleration of people who come from the United States and elsewhere to mediate in such situations. In some respects due deference is not shown by bringing the situation to a conclusion and getting a deal done. A deal could have been done but that did not happen on this occasion for reasons of focusing on one’s electoral base.

Could the Taoiseach indicate the type of discussions that took place in terms of Ireland’s level of philanthropic giving? In that context, was there any discussion about tax relief or the situation pertaining to tax exiles and their treatment? The head of Philanthropy Ireland, Mr. Frank Flannery, has made public statements in that regard. Did he bring to the attention of the Taoiseach that the treatment of tax exiles should be changed in the context of the level of giving by the Irish philanthropic sector?

Deputy Martin asked me who was at the meeting. I cannot recall, except to say that I was there myself with President Clinton and a couple of officials. I can send on the details to him.

As far as I can recall, tax exiles and tax on exiles was not discussed. We had a discussion in respect of the work of Philanthropy Ireland. I indicated earlier that the President was in the country to attend an event relating to Philanthropy Ireland. He is very aware of Ireland’s efforts to increase the activity in terms of philanthropic giving. The forum on philanthropy and fund-raising set out a target to increase philanthropic giving by 10% year-on-year in Ireland from its current level of approximately €500 million per annum to €800 million per annum by 2016. The drivers were the national giving campaign, improving the general fiscal environment and the opportunity to give, developing fund-raising capacity among not-for-profit organisations and creating a national social innovation fund. Since the launch of the forum's report in July 2012 a good deal of progress was made in the implementation of the recommendations. The national giving campaign - the 1% difference – has been launched by Philanthropy Ireland. The tax treatment of donations to charities has been simplified and decoupled from business tax incentives.

A road map has been set out for implementation of the Charities Act and establishing a charities regulator which the Minister announced some time ago. The social innovation fund has been incorporated and a board appointed. All of these things are moving in the right direction.

I take Deputy Micheál Martin's point on dangers developing in Northern Ireland and cross-Border issues if there is no constant engagement and interaction. As I stated to Deputy Mary Lou MacDonald, these talks followed the invitation of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to Dr. Haass. I met him on a number of occasions, as did the Tánaiste, and we stated we were very supportive of his efforts. People may ask why they were not able to conclude them. It turned out that the most contentious issue was that of flags, as distinct from the past or parades. They made progress on all three fronts, on some more than others. It is fair to state that while they did not conclude by being accepted by everybody, there is a basis for moving forward at different levels on each of the three issues. The five parties involved intend to meet in the coming period, of which we are very supportive. I hope to travel to London early in March to speak further to Prime Minister Cameron and that from our perspective and theirs the support of both Governments will continue for the efforts of the parties to make further progress. I hope we will keep engaged and involved. We are cognisant of the dangers to which the Deputy referred and I share his concern.

What is it about Presidents and ex-Presidents of the United States that so mesmerises establishment politicians in Ireland? Are they drawn to the aura of power or former power, the fact that the people concerned were and the incumbents are in charge of the biggest imperial power on earth? It is something about which I always wonder. When the Taoiseach takes advice from President Clinton, I ask him to be careful, particularly with regard to economic advice, considering that for eight years he presided over the policies of extreme liberalisation of the financial markets, the casino economy and the privatisation and liberalisation that took place which, among others policies, laid the basis for the disaster which became the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the Freddie Macs and Fannie Maes which crashed the economy with disastrous consequences for the working class people of the United States and the world. I ask the Taoiseach to be cautious when he takes an apparently uncritical approach to President Clinton.

With regard to Northern Ireland and discussing issues of civil and human rights in which President Clinton supposedly took an interest, did the Taoiseach speak to him about similar issues in the United States, particularly about Irish America and how the establishment there treats the gay and lesbian community in banning it from marching on St. Patrick's Day in New York and Boston? Did the Taoiseach discuss whether he should boycott either of these marches in the event that he has been invited to them? The Minister for Social Protection who seems to be part of his protection detail today as far as Dáil duties are concerned has apparently taken such a position. Will the Taoiseach do the same or will he go along with the homophobic disgraceful approach taken by some of the conservative Irish-American institutions?

It is not a case of being mesmerised by people who are or were elected to the highest political office in the United States, rather it is a case of engaging with people who either hold or held that high office and their interest in our country. The Deputy should never underestimate the advice and encouragement given to business interests from Ireland to invest in the United States and from the United States to invest in Ireland. On more than one occasion President Clinton has pointed out to international audiences of considerable significance the advantages Ireland offers in terms of its attractiveness as a location for investment-----

Massive profits.

-----be it in terms either of the IFSC or the brain power Ireland exhibits in its young people and their ability to reach the highest targets and highs level of challenge. It has been a powerful instrument in delivering many US investors in our country and the resulting jobs and opportunities for the people. It is not a case of being mesmerised; rather, in the case of President Clinton, his interest in Ireland, the part he played in the peace process and his direction that George Mitchell should be the mediator in very difficult circumstances leading to delivery of the Good Friday Agreement more than 20 years ago were important considerations and decisions. The same applies in the case of President Obama who received a certificate of honorary Irish heritage because of his particular interest in the country. The Clinton years were very powerful for the US economy in terms of restoring economic credit to the United States, the number of people at work and the opportunities presented. Obviously, the bank collapse led to catastrophic consequences throughout the country. I hope to travel to the United States. The St. Patrick's Day parade is a parade about our Irishness, not sexuality. I will be happy to participate in it.

The Taoiseach has stated he discussed the issue of flags and parades with President Clinton. I suggest the New York St. Patrick's Day parade has given new meaning to what James Connolly called the carnival of reaction in its disgraceful refusal to allow people in the LGBT community to parade their identity. The Taoiseach should make some statement in response to this disgraceful decision. Will he comment on rumours that at least if he will not boycott the parade as some of us think he should, he will wear the rainbow badge to symbolise his support for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans community and make some protest over this really outrageous and homophobic decision to ban the LGBT community from the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York?

I do not organise the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York or anywhere else. Obviously, the organisers set down their regulations for how the parade is conducted.

The Taoiseach cannot wash his hands.

The Taoiseach could wear the badge.

I understand that approximately 500,000 people participate in the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York. I do not know how many of them are gay or lesbian-----

Approximately 10% normally.

It is a matter for themselves. I do not express anything about their sexuality.

It is a repression of people's rights.

I will certainly be very happy to wear the symbol of Irishness on St. Patrick's Day in New York - the shamrock.

Does Irishness include homophobia?

As I stated, the parade is about Irishness, not sexuality.

It is a disgraceful washing of the Taoiseach's hands.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Top
Share