The Taoiseach might in passing confirm that the reason Leaders' Questions are being taken at this late hour is that he was opening a news room. Apparently, that took priority over Leaders' Questions.
Leaders' Questions
Engagements-----
I think Denis O'Brien owns it.
The Taoiseach might confirm if that is the case.
Let us get on with the question because there is a time limit.
The Topical Issue debate was taken before Leaders' Questions and it is now 8.25 p.m. It is a serious undermining of the status of Leaders' Questions for us to be asking serious questions at this hour of the evening.
The Deputy will not get any answers anyway.
During the debate earlier today Deputy Shortall said that telling the truth matters. It matters very much to people generally and to Members of this House. In the context of the Fennelly report, there is a disquieting contradiction between the Taoiseach's evidence and the evidence of the former Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, Mr. Brian Purcell, the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, former Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan and the Secretary General of the Taoiseach's Department, Mr. Martin Fraser. Taking the evidence of the two Secretaries General first, on the issue that the Taoiseach might not have confidence in the Garda Commissioner, they are very clear that it should be conveyed to him if the matter arose at the Cabinet the following morning. The Taoiseach's evidence is very non-committal on that and very unsatisfactory.
What is even more worrying is the evidence of the former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore. Paragraph 31.31 of the Fennelly report states:
The Taoiseach, according to Mr Gilmore, went on to say that, if he were asked in the House if he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner, he would not be able to say that he had. He added that, if he said that he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner on the Tuesday, and information relating to these tapes emerged on the Wednesday, he would then be in a very difficult position.
Paragraph 31.32 states:
The evidence of Mr Gilmore, although it relates to what the Taoiseach said the following day, provides significant corroboration for the proposition that the Taoiseach did express doubts about whether he could continue to express confidence in the Commissioner. Although this conversation occurred after the Commissioner had retired, it is significant that, in an entirely different setting, the Taoiseach was speaking to Mr Gilmore of the issue very much in the same terms as are attributed to him by Mr Fraser, Mr Shatter and Mr Purcell on the evening before.
The Taoiseach's response to Mr. Justice Fennelly is very difficult to comprehend. He initially tried to suggest that he did not agree with the then Tánaiste. He then said he could not, as he stated, "recall the accuracy of what he said" and, later, that he could not verify whether they - the words attributed to him by Mr Gilmore - were the actual words that he used. He then returned to the theme of the necessity for him of being able to "defend", to use his word, the position.
I put it to the Taoiseach that it is of fundamental concern that his evidence is significantly at variance with the evidence of four very senior active personnel involved in this entire scenario. I ask the Taoiseach to, first, comment-----
Sorry Deputy, we are way over time. Thank you.
-----on the former Tánaiste's account of his meeting with him an hour before the Cabinet. Does the Taoiseach agree that is what he said to the Tánaiste?
If the Deputy reads the report he will find, both in respect of the meeting on the Monday and on the Tuesday, that the commission of investigation points out a difference of recollection by people who were at the meeting. The important point is that 16 months later a learned Supreme Court Judge goes through all of that evidence, which was given on oath to the best of people's ability, and draws his conclusions and findings, as per the terms of reference given to him by the Government. The interim report that we referred to today pointed to two elements of that aspect that were requested of me from an all-party Oireachtas committee, which I complied with completely. I asked that the judge would deal with that, which he did and requested that he would produce an interim report on both of those issues before the main report.
It is disquieting. It is disquieting also for Deputy Martin because he was party to wanting a commission of investigation, which I complied with and which the Government complied with. That is a statutory sworn commission of investigation. When the justice wrote to me and said that he would not be able or did not intend to produce his report on an interim basis until after the Bailey case was dealt with, Deputy Martin said that this should be challenged.
Sorry.
The Deputy said that this should be challenged, which was a direct attempt by him to have the sole member of the commission of investigation produce the report at the time he would like it. What is important are the conclusions that are drawn by the commission of investigation.
Would the Taoiseach give us that again?
I do not know what the Taoiseach is saying.
The Deputy is not listening to the Taoiseach. He was listening to Deputy Dooley.
(Interruptions).
Sorry, would you please stay quiet. The Taoiseach is well able to answer himself.
The commission of investigation has reported after 16 months. It has set out its conclusions. It has set out the fact that variations in accounts have been given by different people. The learned judge has drawn his conclusions and given his findings in that regard. His findings are a direct contradiction of what Deputy Martin said in this House, namely, that I sacked the Garda Commissioner. I have rejected that consistently.
The Taoiseach got someone else to sack him.
The findings of the commission of investigation support that strongly, in that there was never an intent, discussion or motivation in any way to remove the Garda Commissioner from his position.
I asked the Taoiseach a very simple question. Does he agree with the testimony of his former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, who was very clear in his evidence? Basically, he stated that the Taoiseach said that if he were asked in the House if he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner, he would not be able to say that he had. That is what the then Tánaiste said. The commission makes a finding on what the Taoiseach calls the variations of evidence. The report states: "The commission has given careful and very detailed consideration to the question of whether, at the meeting of 24th March 2014 in the Taoiseach's office, there was discussion, whatever words were used [by the Taoiseach]."
A question, please.
The report continues:
The Commission finds it impossible to resist the conclusion that, in some form, the Taoiseach did, indeed say that, putting at its lowest, he might, in light of an impending difficult Cabinet meeting, have difficulty in expressing confidence in the Commissioner. He did so in the knowledge that any equivocation in his expression of confidence was problematic for the Commissioner.
The Taoiseach sent the Secretary General out on what I consider to be a very improper journey.
A question, please.
It was an improper thing to do to use a Secretary General to do the Taoiseach's dirty work for him. Fundamentally, Mr. Justice Fennelly is saying that he believes the testimony of Deputy Gilmore, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Purcell and the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, over and above the Taoiseach's evidence or his inability to recollect anything. The fundamental problem-----
Sorry, Deputy; you are over time. You had a one-minute supplementary question.
The Taoiseach is not telling the truth on this. He is not telling the truth.
Would you resume your seat, Deputy? Thank you.
He sent the Secretary General out with one purpose in mind. The Commissioner is in no doubt about it. The Secretary General was in no doubt about it. He said what was being asked of him was wrong. The Taoiseach is not telling the truth on this one.
That is not the first time Deputy Martin has called someone a liar. Today, Deputy Martin asked why I did not ring the Commissioner.
A Deputy
Look what happened to the last Taoiseach.
If Deputy Martin knows his business - I am sure he does - he will know that the Garda Commissioner of the day is accountable to the Minister for Justice and Equality through the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality.
The Taoiseach sidelined him.
Deputy Martin knows that, yet he asked me why I did not ring the Commissioner.
Second, the Commissioner did write to the Secretary General under the relevant section of the Act introduced by the former Minister, Mr. McDowell, which brings it to a different level. The requirement of the first line of that letter was to bring this to the notice of the Minister for Justice and Equality. Had that happened, the Minister for Justice and Equality would have acted upon it. When the Secretary General attended the meeting on the Monday and went to speak to the Commissioner to give him my view that this was a serious matter, he knew he had been written to by the Commissioner of the Garda. He knew because it had been received ten days before that in the Department of Justice and Equality. As I said today in my brief contribution here, I found it absolutely incredible that this situation applied.
He told the Taoiseach that.
Please, will you stay quiet?
He told the Taoiseach that the Commissioner had-----
As I said-----
There are other Deputies waiting to speak, Deputy Martin. Thank you.
With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, we were waiting because the Taoiseach was opening a newsroom downtown.
Hold on a second. Would you mind your own business, Deputy Dooley?
Hear, hear.
It is my business, a Cheann Comhairle, with respect. I am elected to this House and I have a mandate just as everyone else does.
No. You do not have a mandate to challenge the Chair.
Deputy Dooley is not the leader of a party yet.
Deputy Kehoe is okay the way he is going.
Deputy Adams, please.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Durkan, will you allow Deputy Adams to ask his question, please? It is not a good idea having Leaders' Questions at 8.30 p.m. at night. That is all I will say.
I certainly agree with you on that, a Cheann Comhairle. The Dublin Simon Community launched its annual review today. The report on the worsening statistics regarding housing need is an indictment of the Government. There are 5,000 citizens in temporary shelter throughout the State, including 1,500 children. There are nearly 2,300 people in emergency accommodation in this city, including almost 1,300 children, and the number of homeless children in Dublin has increased by 63%. The Taoiseach may note that the Simon Community has rightly described this as a humanitarian crisis.
Last Christmas, the Taoiseach made much of his time on the streets meeting those citizens living rough and at risk following the death of Jonathan Corrie, who died on a doorway opposite this Chamber. The failure of Government policy is evident in the reality that there are now more citizens sleeping rough today than there were when Jonathan Corrie died. That is the reality and the consequence of Government policy.
Throughout the State there are 130,000 citizens seeking a home. Almost 5,000 of these live my constituency of Louth. Throughout the State there has been an increase of 40,000 in the past four years since the Taoiseach came into Government. This housing crisis is by no means confined to Dublin. Waterford has seen a 74% rise in the number of people presenting as homeless in the first eight months of this year. This humanitarian crisis is a direct result of Government policies. There is a chronic lack of social and affordable housing. The Government has built only a fraction of the social housing needed. The Government has refused to tackle rising rents or rent uncertainty. It has refused to remove the veto from the banks. How bad does the crisis have to get before the Government takes appropriate and urgent action?
I thank Deputy Adams for raising a matter that is of concern to a great number of people throughout the country. Deputy Adams is right. This is not a good situation or one that one can say is by any means satisfactory.
Last winter I walked the streets of Dublin with the then Lord Mayor on a number of occasions to deal with the homeless people who were sleeping rough. The Government responded on that occasion by providing extra money for the agencies and to provide extra beds, and by opening the night café, as well as by making arrangements whereby the vast majority of people who were then rough sleepers in Dublin - except those who really wanted to be on the streets - were housed and given an opportunity to have a bed at night.
The situation has been exacerbated now because of other homeless families. As Deputy Adams points out, 3,372 adults were using state-funded emergency accommodation during a particular week in August of this year. Those figures identified 707 families, consisting of 959 adults and 1,496 dependants. This is not a satisfactory situation. It will not be solved until we increase the supply of accommodation.
When is the Government doing that?
The figure to deal with homeless situation in Dublin in 2015 was €37.16 million. By the end of August, €33.4 million of that money had been spent. Further moneys have been committed but not actually paid out.
There are a number of things that are happening, but they are not dealing with the matter to the extent that one would like. On the social housing front, the Government has put forward €4 billion to be spent between now and 2020. Furthermore, the allocation of local authority tenancies has been increased, and 50% must go to homeless people on the direction of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. That is to apply until 31 January 2016, when it will be reviewed. Second, money has been made available to restore unliveable houses, or voids, as they are called. A total of 500 have been brought back into use in 2015. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, has committed the additional funding for that. Third, the expert group set up to look at social housing and homelessness looked at this on an individual basis to oversee the delivery of a NAMA property, an apartment block in south Dublin which is now operating a 65-unit accommodation facility.
The question of modular housing was raised at the Cabinet sub-committee on a number of occasions. As people will be aware, presentations of different types of modular unit are now available. That will be followed through at Dublin City Council. In addition, the extension of the housing assistance payment to homeless people as a pilot scheme has brought in a further 50 people.
To be straight about this, we cannot deal with it in a satisfactory way until more blocks and concrete are used to build houses. Some 21,000 units in Dublin have planning permission but there has been no movement in respect of them. In some cases, builders acquired land at very costly prices and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference between its value now and its estimated value in the past. Yesterday, the Ministers for Finance and the Environment, Community and Local Government mandated their senior people to examine a range of extra options to deal with the homelessness crisis. The situation is not satisfactory and I thank the Deputy for raising the matter. It is one which cannot be resolved until we provide more housing units and accommodation. We are working very hard on this matter.
Provide them after four and a half years.
I am starting to form an opinion around some of these scandalous crises, namely, that it is Government policy. I am of the view that it is Government policy to have people on hospital trolleys. If something happens once or twice or for one month or two months, it must be policy. The Simon Community and other advocacy groups have proved that the homelessness crisis has worsened. Focus Ireland has stated that rising rents and static rent supplement payments are causing homelessness in families, 90% of which were never before homeless. Many are also being made homeless by landlords selling properties to take advantage of rising property prices.
A citizen has the right to a home. The Government needs to completely change the manner-----
A question, please.
-----in which it views tenants. They are citizens with basic rights, not cash cows for private landlords. Instead of trying to solve the housing crisis, the approach of the Minister, Deputy Kelly, has been to support landlords and the owners of private rented accommodation. In his response, the Taoiseach acknowledged that not enough houses have been built. He said we cannot deal with this matter in a satisfactory way until more houses are built. I did not need to put a question to him to be told that. I asked him when he would take appropriate and urgent action.
I remind the Taoiseach that he has refused to tackle rising rents - that is policy. He has refused to tackle rent uncertainty - that is policy. He has refused to remove the veto from the banks - that is policy. He has refused to build enough social housing - that is policy. When will he change his policy? Dublin City Council has a shortfall of €16 million. Will the Taoiseach change his policy and build the necessary homes for citizens who deserve them in order to deal with the crisis?
It is not actually a question of problems with money.
Stop.
The Government will be making available €4 billion between now and 2020. Councils and local authorities-----
The Government cut back €1.2 billion between 2008 and now.
Will the Deputy stay quiet, please?
-----have been given their mandates and targets and told to get on with the job. As stated, 21,000 units in Dublin have full planning permission but there has been no movement in respect of them because of either the cost of levies or the fact that there are other problems.
They cannot get money.
In respect of the rent position, Deputy Adams is aware that, on an individual basis, rent supplement can be increased for a family where there is an issue with a landlord moving them on or increasing their rent, which will result in their becoming homeless.
They are not doing that.
That is not happening.
They are looking for €400 or €500 extra a month.
Will Deputies stay quiet, please?
There is not a problem with money here. All of these cases can be dealt with on an individual basis and quite a number are now being dealt with in that manner. As I said, the Minister decided that half of the housing accommodation being allocated by local authorities for tenancies should go to homeless people. Families in Dublin, Cork, Waterford or anywhere else that have a problem with landlords increasing their rent and moving them out can have their problem dealt with through their rent supplement being increased, on an individual basis, by the Department of Social Protection. It is happening and people need to be informed of the facility. It is not a permanent solution by any means, but it means that people can have continued tenancy in their existing accommodation for a further period. That facility is available tonight and will be available tomorrow. It is not a question of money. Each case can be dealt with in the context of the individual circumstances.
Is the Taoiseach at all concerned about the increasingly blatant political policing directed against those who challenge the austerity policies of the Government? First is the unprecedented situation where those who are due to be charged with serious criminal offences for their involvement in a protest find out through the media that is the case. This would appear to be a serious infringement of their right to privacy and an interference with the administration of justice. Does the Taoiseach think that is acceptable? Is he concerned about it?
Second is the denial of a collection permit to the Anti-Austerity Alliance by a chief superintendent on the grounds that the proceeds would be used to encourage the commission of an unlawful act, in particular because the chief superintendent in question, Orla McPartlin, believes, "That the proceeds of the collection would be used to facilitate protests sponsored by the Anti-Austerity Alliance." This could be straight out of the pages of 1984, whereby a party is not allowed to fund-raise because it might organise protests. With one act, the right to protest and the presumption of innocence have been unceremoniously thrown out of the window. Does the Taoiseach agree with that decision and does he think it is appropriate that a chief superintendent has the power to make such a decision?
Third, and most serious, are the revelations about what is reported as being called Operation Mizen, a secret Garda spying operation including the highest level of surveillance which is directed against water charges protestors, including myself. It is reportedly an information-gathering operation directed by the husband of the Garda Commissioner. The only basis on which to target these individuals seems to be the fact that they are water charges protestors. Does the Taoiseach consider that at all sinister? Is he or members of his Cabinet aware that the Garda unit is in operation? Was he consulted about its foundation or operation? Was any report made to the Department of Justice and Equality or the Government about the operations of the unit?
The day-to-day operations of the Garda are a matter for the Garda Commissioner. The allocation of permits for collections or whatever are within the power of the chief superintendent or superintendents in any district. The issuing of summonses or charges is a matter for the Garda and if there are court cases involved it is not an area in which I can interfere in any way.
The Taoiseach will note that I did not ask about operations, the issuing of summonses or anything like that. I asked a very simple question about the leaking of that information. It is unprecedented that people - named individuals - discover in reports on RTE that they will be charged with false imprisonment. That is an outrageous infringement on their right to privacy and the administration of justice.
I want to press the Taoiseach on the question of Operation Mizen. If a Deputy is being spied upon by a secret group within the Garda, that is a very serious matter. If people are being spied upon because they are water charges protestors and exercising their democratic and constitutional right to assemble and protest, that is a serious matter. It is a very simple question. The Taoiseach can state that the day-to-day operations are in the hands of the Garda Commissioner. However, were he, the Government or the Minister for Justice and Equality, to his knowledge, aware of the foundation of the unit and how it operates? Have they received any reports from it? If, in Putin's Russia or elsewhere, opposition members were threatened with jail because of their involvement with protests and they and activists were spied upon and denied the right to fund-raise, there would be justifiable outrage in the media and this House. I would like answers on the question of Operation Mizen.
As I said, Deputy Murphy, the operational running of the Garda is a matter for the Commissioner. I would not have any knowledge of groups such as those the Deputy mentioned. I suggest he tables the question to the Minister for Justice and Equality and I am quite sure she will be happy to answer it for him.
What is your opinion?
Deputy Murphy is talking about spies, Deputy Higgins. Does he have evidence of a group that is-----
It is in the newspapers.
It must be right so.
You would know a few things about newspapers, especially local ones.
If he does he should table a question to the Minister for Justice and Equality and give her the information he has and I am quite sure she will be happy to respond to it.
I got a one line answer from her.