Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the outstanding recommendations from the Constitutional Convention on referenda on various issues. [33547/16]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Constitutional Convention Recommendations
Brendan Howlin
Question:2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his plans for the recommended referenda arising from the Constitutional Convention. [34746/16]
Micheál Martin
Question:3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Constitutional Convention recommendation on economic, social and cultural rights subject to the maximum available resources to be inserted into the Constitution. [35169/16]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The previous Government responded in the Dáil to all nine reports of the Constitutional Convention. The reports contained 38 recommendations, 18 of which would involve change in the text of the Constitution. The main recommendations for referendums and the response to them were as follows.
In its first report, the convention recommended that the age threshold for candidacy in presidential elections be reduced from 35 years. A referendum on this was defeated on 22 May 2015. A recommendation to reduce the voting age to 16 was accepted but a referendum was not held on the matter. There are no proposals to proceed with such a referendum.
In the convention's second report, the reference in Article 41.2 of the Constitution to "a woman's life within the home" was considered. The programme for a partnership Government commits the Government to holding a referendum on this issue.
In its third report, the convention recommended an amendment to the Constitution to provide for same-sex marriage. A referendum on marriage equality was held on 22 May 2015 and was passed by a majority of 62.1%.
The convention's fourth report made recommendations on the electoral system. A recommendation for a referendum to permit the appointment of non-Oireachtas members as Ministers was not accepted, given that the Constitution already allows the Taoiseach to nominate as Ministers two persons who have not been elected to the Oireachtas but have been nominated to the Seanad. The recommendation that Ministers be required to resign their Dáil seats on appointment to office was not accepted. The convention did not put forward proposals on how the resultant Dáil vacancies might be filled.
In respect of the fifth report, on amending the Constitution to give citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections, the previous Government indicated that it was necessary to analyse the full range of practical and policy issues that would arise in any significant extension of the franchise before a decision could be made on the holding of a referendum. That analysis is ongoing and will be considered by the Government in due course.
As regards the sixth report, on the offence of blasphemy, the programme for Government states that a referendum will be held on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.
The seventh report made recommendations relating to Dáil reform, some of which would have involved a referendum. The House will be aware that Standing Orders were amended in January of this year to provide for the direct election of the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot and the selection of Oireachtas committee Chairs on a proportional basis using the D’Hondt system. Both these steps were in line with recommendations made by the convention and did not require a referendum. The programme of reform in the current Dáil builds on those reforms introduced by the previous Government and reflects many of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. The programme for Government commits the Government to a referendum on enhancing the reference to the Ceann Comhairle in the Constitution. The Ceann Comhairle will be glad of that.
As regards the convention’s eighth report, the programme for Government states this report, on economic, social and cultural rights, will be referred to the new Oireachtas Committee on Housing for consideration of the substantial questions it raises on the balance of rights, proper governance and resources.
The convention's ninth report did not make recommendations for constitutional change. There are no plans otherwise to implement convention recommendations for referenda that were not accepted by the last Government other than as set out in the programme for Government.
When the convention was established in 2012, we said at the time it was too general, it involved many non-urgent issues, it was unfocused and some of those issues should have been dealt with upfront at the time rather than being put to a constitutional convention. It is important, as the Taoiseach has noted, that recommendations that have yet to be voted on in this Dáil include popular nomination for the presidency, a full franchise for 16 year olds, gender neutral terminology in the Constitution, presidential votes for emigrants, decriminalisation of blasphemy and inclusion of justiciable economic and social rights. The hype with which the convention was established was always going to end with recommendations gathering dust in Government Buildings and relatively minor amendments to the Constitution.
In the case of marriage equality, it is arguable that the convention was a means of delaying the proposal for two years because all political parties bar the Taoiseach's had two years earlier committed to holding such a referendum. What, if anything, will be done on recommendations to which there has been no proper response and for which there is no clear public demand, for example, the extension of voting in presidential elections to Irish citizens abroad? Every party in the previous Dáil supported this. Prior to the general election in October 2015, former Minister of State, Senator Paudie Coffey, informed the House that work was under way on designing a proposal that could be brought to the House. Where has that gone? The former Minister of State indicated that a great deal of work was being done to design such a proposal. The next presidential election will take place in less than two years. If the complex job of creating an electoral register and a polling scheme is to be completed, work needs to begin soon. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to fulfil the promise of an emigrant vote for the 2018 presidential election or is that too close for anything realistically to be done? What is the Government's exact position on that specific proposal and the other issues I have raised?
My second question in this group is quite separate in a way but I accept it has to be taken because it is in the context of the convention. It relates to justiciable economic and social rights. The convention recommended that these be inserted in the Constitution but be subject to a resources limit. That would be the only example of such an approach in a common law system if that was enacted. The Government put this on the agenda first when it referred these issues to the convention and now it is quietly running away from that particular idea. A demand for justiciable rights in the Constitution is commonly heard but the work has not been done on what it would mean in practice. The recommendation includes a provision that would set a limit on available resources. What that would mean in practice is unclear. What work has been done on defining the impact of this proposal?
As we have witnessed frequently in past referenda, failing to produce detailed studies of the consequences of a proposal can cause a destructive and negative debate during the ensuing campaign. Will the Taoiseach outline what provision has been made for holding referenda in the next 12 months given all these recommendations? Since the budget has been published, any referendum would surely be included in the Estimates. What is the up-to-date estimate of the cost of a referendum? Does the Taoiseach have plans for one over the next 12 months? Everybody is in favour of justiciable economic rights on the one hand but, on the other, no one has gone through the detail of it. I recently highlighted the EPSEN Act in the House. This Act gives legislative rights to children with special needs. Despite that being passed into law in 2005, the sections of that Act that confer rights on children with disabilities have never been commenced. There is always a challenge and a balance between having the language right and having the various provisions meet all the idealistic viewpoints and perspectives of people but when it comes to the practical implementation on the ground of issues that make a difference to those who are very often the subject of the proposals, very little gets done. The debate is between pragmatists and those who want to implement on the ground versus those who are happy once the conventions are signed, ratified and inserted in the Constitution. If they are never enacted, it does not seem to bother some people. That might be a bit unfair but that tends to be what happens. I recall the debate on the special needs rights strongly. More than a decade has passed and key sections of that Act have not been commenced. It is arguable that, as a result, the child is no longer at the centre of advocacy within our schools in terms of special needs and so on. The NCSE has had to work away as best it can in the absence of such a legislative framework.
I ask these questions in good faith. What work is being done on defining the impact of the proposal to insert economic and social rights in the Constitution, be they related to housing or health? I have an open mind on health, for example, but we need the preparatory work and the ground work to be done and the detail to be outlined for a proper debate.
Does the Government intend during its lifetime, however brief or long that may be, to hold any referenda? There is a great sense that this, like a lot of other stuff, has been long-fingered. There will not be another consultative process in respect of the various decisions of the Constitutional Convention. We should salute its members. They completed their work but it is clear that their work just lies there. With regard to the proposal to reduce the voting age, does the Taoiseach have any intention of affording to younger people the opportunity to vote subject to the referendum? Does he have wording for that proposal?
Second, there was also a proposal relating to the issue of blasphemy and the Constitution. A number of people have suggested that this would give us an opportunity as a society to examine issues around incitement to hatred. These are technical issues. We are also aware of the article in respect of what was then perceived in the 1930s to the role of women in Irish society.
The Constitution proclaimed that a woman's role was particularly related to being in the home. Almost everybody here would agree that these are three issues over and beyond what Deputy Martin raised that require to be addressed. We are witnessing at the moment, not least as a result of the election in America last week, very profound changes, some of which constitute potentially enormous threats to democracy. We have seen passions running wild in the American election in a way we probably have not seen since the 1930s in Europe. Our Constitution comes out of the 1930s and its social values reflect some of the values of that era. In Ireland, because we had a strong constitutional democracy, we did not fall prey in the way other societies did. It is important, given what has been happening around the world in recent times, in particular the re-emergence in politics of the strong-man syndrome. We have strong men in many different parts of the world, from the Philippines to Russia and various other areas. We have somebody now coming into the presidency of the United States who, certainly during the election, cast himself as an archetypal strong man. Is now not the time for us in Ireland, as we have done on previous occasions, to have a genuine look at the Constitution, address the question of younger people having access to voting to encourage their involvement in democracy and address the issue of how women are addressed in the Constitution and modernise it?
The Constitutional Convention has a number of very valuable suggestions on that which recognised that both genders have at different times in their lives, if not for all their lives, and under different circumstances had caring roles. It also address the issues of differences in society to approaches to people of different genders, different sexual orientations, different religions and people of different colours and origins under the general issue of incitement to hatred rather than debate. During the recent election in the United States, we heard a great deal of that kind of hateful language. We have seen a lot of it on Twitter as well. Many people have been victims of that in a very nasty way. This is an opportunity to address some of the issues that are outstanding in Irish society. Is the Taoiseach's Government prepared to address any of this or, as a result of the lack of stability and agreement in Government, has he just decided to take a pass on it for the remainder of the life of the Government?
We would expect the Taoiseach to be super human were we to ask him to respond to all the questions in the seven seconds remaining. Can I ask the House if we could take perhaps five minutes from the remaining groups of questions in order to further explore this because Deputy Adams and Deputy Barrett are offering and the issues are important? Is that agreed? Agreed.
Will Members please be conscious that if we use all the time to ask the questions there is no time left to answer?
Táim buíoch den Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé go han-sciobtha. I want to deal with one issue. In September 2013, the Constitutional Convention voted to extend voting rights to citizens living outside the State. In November 2015, the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs made a recommendation to extend these rights following criticism by the European Commission. More than 120 states have provisions for their citizens abroad to cast their ballot in the elections of their home places. The European Commission has made it clear it would be possible to bring a case against this State to the European Court of Justice. The Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, Deputy Joe McHugh, said there will be a referendum in early 2017. Can the Taoiseach confirm that this referendum will include extending the same rights to Irish citizens living in the North as supported by the Constitutional Convention? Previously the Taoiseach said he was waiting for an analysis. Has this been considered? When will it be concluded? If it is concluded, when will it be published?
Will the Taoiseach explain to me what particular role the Constitutional Convention plays in terms of its recommendations and the role of this House, which consists of elected representatives? I am a bit concerned that because a Constitutional Convention recommends something, it should be implemented without reference to the House. We have a structure and everybody in here was elected by the people. While we welcome recommendations from the Constitutional Convention, they should be debated in the House, either through the committee system or on the floor of this House, before they are implemented. We cannot pass over those who are elected directly by the people into this House.
The microphone is not lighting up.
The Taoiseach has been cut off.
I am silenced. Deputy Martin raised the question of presidential elections. In response to Deputy Adam's contribution, there will not be a referendum on this in early 2017. I have committed-----
So there will not be one?
There will not be one in early 2017, as was referenced by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh. I commit to holding a referendum on the elections for the presidency. I had a meeting with the Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, Deputy Joe McHugh, quite recently and asked that the officials dealing with this in the Department expedite and bring together all the work they have been doing in respect of the range of problems and difficulties this deals with. There are 3.5 million Irish citizens resident outside the State, including those in Northern Ireland. The diaspora internationally is estimated at about 70 million. There is a need to be aware, therefore, that if we consider this, we need to look at the scale of what is involved, the number of citizens to whom the franchise might be extended and what the impact might be on the electorate and the administrative and cost implications that could arise. Issues that need to be considered are whether all citizens outside the State have the right to vote in presidential elections, if they should be limited to a particular category, or if it should be citizens who have been absent from the State for a set period. If so, what would be appropriate? Should it be citizens born on the island of Ireland only? Should it be passport holders only? The intention is that Northern Ireland citizens would be included here. It is a matter that would have to be looked at in the context of the Good Friday Agreement.
In reply to Deputy Martin, I do not think it will be possible to do it in time for the next presidential election. In respect of the 2018 election, the time would be very short to go through all of these considerable challenges, set it out and have it implemented. I might be wrong but my feeling is that it would not be possible. That should not preclude committing to the principle, having a referendum on it and putting in place the structure and facilities to do it. It is an issue people would need to speak on. It is important and I would like to see it happen. I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, to come back at an early date to look at the concentrated issues that have been raised there.
We had a referendum on children's rights to enshrine them in our Constitution. From a children's rights point of view, I have to treat all children equally. Those who have a challenge or disability have the same rights in our Constitution and are recognised in our Constitution as any other child. The question of the signing of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an issue that was referred to already. We need to have legislation put in place-----
I meant the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act.
The EPSEN Act, which Deputy Rabbitte raised as well, has been raised by Deputy Martin before. I will come back to him on it, if I may.
The Constitutional Convention recommended that the social, cultural and economic rights be progressively realised. The programme for Government says this should be referred to the Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government for consideration.
However, it did make specific reference to the fact that if we put such provisions into the Constitution and made them recognisable by the courts, it would create very particular and complicated problems.
I will come back to Deputy Martin on the EPSEN Act. In fairness, he has raised the matter previously.
The point made by Deputy Seán Barrett is interesting. The fact is that this House is elected by all the people, irrespective of who they vote for. The Constitutional Convention, however, was never a decision-making body. It was an opportunity for people from throughout the country to make recommendations. Those recommendations might be accepted by the House or they might not. It was not the case that those involved decided we should hold a referendum on a particular subject. Many of the recommendations made by the Constitutional Convention were not accepted. It did not necessarily follow that there would be a referendum. There was a referendum in the case of marriage equality and in a number of other instances where it was accepted by the Government of the day. On those occasions, the relevant matter was debated and a referendum followed. Obviously, a citizens' convention does not take over from the primacy of the elected representatives of the House.
There is no wording for a proposal to have a referendum on the right to vote for those over 16 years of age. There is a commitment to hold a referendum on blasphemy, but the question is rather technical.
The question of women was raised as well. The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality set out the position on her Department's website on 27 October last. Article 41.2 was examined by the Convention. The second report of the Convention refers to how Article 41.2 relates to carers in the home and not just mothers. There is also reference to carers beyond the home and reference to how the State should be able to offer a reasonable level of support to ensure carers would not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour. An amendment to the Constitution to include an explicit provision on gender equality is referenced, as is an amendment to the Constitution to include gender-inclusive language throughout the text.
These points were subsequently examined by a task force of officials under the Department of Justice and Equality and the group produced a report. The report is on the website. No timing has been decided on as of yet in respect of a referendum on this matter. The Tánaiste will bring forward propositions for the Government to consider regarding the proposed approach to be adopted. Once the matter has been approved by the Government, the Tánaiste will follow through with the general scheme of a referendum Bill, which will set out the arrangements for the referendum and the wording.
The Citizens' Assembly is under way at the moment to consider a particular issue in respect of the eighth amendment. It will also examine a number of other matters that have been delegated to it.
Deputy Adams raised the question of Northern Ireland. I have answered it. We have to consider anything in this regard in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, with which Deputy Adams is familiar.
Programme for Government Implementation
The arrangement was that there would be ten minutes for this and ten minutes for the next group.
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to set out the position regarding the commitment in the programme for Government in respect of supporting an enhanced approach to Government by Ministers of State and to set out the way in which they would play a more substantive role in decision-making; the progress on this; and the way it is being implemented. [33549/16]
In addition to delegation orders that assign responsibility for specific statutory functions, I have also assigned to Ministers of State specific responsibilities to progress and implement programme for Government commitments. Following the appointment of Ministers of State, a set of policy priorities was agreed between myself, Ministers and Ministers of State. On the establishment of the Government, I met each Minister along with his or her Ministers of State on a bilateral basis to discuss their short-term, medium-term and long-term policy priorities. Since then, I have met regularly with Ministers of State to receive updates on the progress they have made in implementing their programme for Government policy priorities. It is a case of some people having statutory responsibilities designated to them and some having responsibilities assigned to them without a statutory declaration.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to supporting an enhanced approach to Government by Ministers of State and outlined the way in which they would play a more substantive role in decision-making. I am asking for a progress report on this issue. The Taoiseach has outlined how things were always done in the case of either appointing Ministers of State with statutory responsibility or appointing those without specific statutory remit but, perhaps, with a broader policy remit. The comments of the Taoiseach add nothing to what is contained in the programme for Government. The programme for Government suggests that something different would be done; that something of a more enhanced role would be put in play for Ministers of State.
I put it to the Taoiseach that this got off to a bad start when Deputies Canney and Moran tossed a coin to decide who would become Minister of State. I recall asking Deputy Moran in the corridors whether the appointments would be for two-and-a-half years each, to which he replied that I must have been joking because the whole thing would not last at all and that the arrangements were for one year at a time.
I put it to the Taoiseach that this does not represent an enhanced role for Ministers of State. I take it the Taoiseach disapproves of this behaviour by the two Deputies, albeit, they are new to the House. This has shone a bad light on the question of Ministers of State and their appointment. All of this happened and was widely reported. Both Deputies have told many journalists about it without any hint of embarrassment. They poured forth their views on how tossing a coin to decide who would become the Minister of State for one year was acceptable. Apparently, at committees the Minister of State is shadowed by the Deputy who will become the Minister of State for the next year in order that the future Minister of State can read himself into the job. I think all of this is degrading to the office of Minister of State. The practice undermines the office.
I have considerable sympathy for the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Halligan, because of the way he was treated in respect of University Hospital Waterford and the recommendation in respect of the catheterisation laboratory. In previous times, other reports were compiled. For example, a clinical report was compiled in respect of the formation of the hospital group system. The clinicians involved were adamant that University Hospital Waterford should have been the regional centre for cardiac care as well as emergency cardiac care. The hospital was designated for that purpose in a separate report. In other words, two separate reports, prior to that commissioned by the Minister for Health, identified Waterford hospital as a key centre for cardiac care. The Minister would have been within his rights to expect that the matter would be followed through and that the second catheterisation laboratory would be provided. Indeed, the HSE had made a business case for it regionally, although the decision was made nationally.
In any event, at no stage did anyone say that the hospital could not or should not go ahead with it until the aftermath of the election and the discussions and negotiations around the formation of Government. Then, hey presto, it was decided to undertake another review. The result is that the second catheterisation laboratory has not been approved. This put the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, in a difficult position. He was caricatured and, to some extent, parodied by others as not being effective enough in pursuing the issue. I would have thought the decision-making processes in Government would have been refined in the context of the composition of Government to help better decision-making on the issue, especially since decisions apply to particular Ministers of State.
Can the Taoiseach confirm the number of delegation orders in respect of statutory responsibilities that have been issued at this stage? Can the Taoiseach outline whether other delegation orders have yet to be made or whether others are in the process of being made but have not yet been executed? Can the Taoiseach indicate the position?
I read a report recently to the effect that Ministers of State were deemed to be powerless. As I pointed out to Deputy Martin, all Ministers of State have responsibility. Some have been assigned by statutory delegation order and others have been allocated with responsibilities for particular areas. For example, there are two Ministers of State in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputies McHugh and Dara Murphy. The Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, has special responsibility for the diaspora and international development. The Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, has responsibility for European affairs and data protection. He works at the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach.
The Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 1977 provides for the delegation of statutory ministerial powers and duties to Ministers of State. This may be done at the request of the Minister concerned by Government order. The responsibilities allocated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs relate to consular, passport and technical matters, and it is not the practice, nor is it considered necessary, to delegate those functions he has held for himself as Minister for Foreign Affairs. For instance, the Minister for Public Expenditure, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, interpreted a question from Deputy Eoghan Murphy, who is a Minister of State, as referring to a delegation of ministerial functions order. He allocated the Minister of State, Deputy Murphy, functions and responsibilities to carry out on his behalf but he did not do so by statutory authority under the Act. Deputy Murphy deals with financial services, as Deputy Martin is aware, in the IFSC and so on. The Minister, Deputy Ross, decided not to allocate by statutory delegation of ministerial function responsibilities in the areas of sports, local authority programmes, engagement with sporting bodies and partnerships regarding other matters to the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan.
That is different. Does the fact that Deputy Ross did not allocate any statutory responsibility for sport not represent a change?
He did not allocate any responsibility by statutory delegation. He answered-----
I think sport was allocated by statutory authority previously.
Deputy Ross answered a question on that here-----
Was that statutory previously? Deputy Michael Ring, a Minister of State at the time, seemed to be totally in charge of sport during the term of the previous Dáil, so clearly the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donovan, is not in charge of sport.
If the former Minister of State, Deputy Ring, had those responsibilities by statutory delegation, he may have-----
The Taoiseach would have known all about it.
Certainly. I agree with Deputy Martin.
Deputy Ring represents the same constituency as the Taoiseach, so he would have known all about it.
The Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, assumed responsibility for forestry, horticulture, food safety and the greyhound industry, and the order was to be signed in that regard, so a number of responsibilities were allocated.
The Taoiseach might give his view on the tossing of the coin.
The Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works is the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, who is doing a very good job.
Does he-----
Deputy Martin mentioned the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan.
Does the Taoiseach have a response to the question of the tossing of the coin?
The issue of the cath lab in Waterford regional hospital, which was very important, was the subject of letters, discussions and a world-renowned clinician's report. The Minister for Health accepted that the enhancement of the cath lab should be followed through and money provided for it to cover extra hours, extra personnel and extra resources and accepted the outcome in that area. The Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, has responsibility for doubling the number of apprenticeships by 2020, expanding the youth services that support early school leavers, increasing the number of flexible courses and opportunities available, working with the Oireachtas committee to review a further adult and community education-----
I ask the Taoiseach to conclude his remarks as there are ten minutes left.
Deputy Martin asked me some very important questions to which I will not be able to respond.
I take it the Minister, Deputy Ross, has no responsibility for justice. He has been making many announcements about justice recently. He is opening Garda stations again.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform has met; and if he will provide its forward schedule of meetings. [33563/16]
Gerry Adams
Question:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform will take place. [34562/16]
Joan Burton
Question:7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service last met; and the status of its work. [34889/16]
I ask the Taoiseach to be conscious that three Members will want to ask supplementary questions.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together. Since the formation of Government, the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform has met on three occasions: 4 July, 15 September and 22 October. The meetings of the committee are scheduled on an ongoing basis, with the next meeting scheduled for 12 December.
I am very curious to know what exactly this committee is doing in the area of inequality, with which it is tasked to deal. It seems to me, particularly given recent events such as the election of Mr. Trump in the US and what many people are calling the rise of extreme populism, that the question of tackling inequality is central to addressing inequality. The political establishment, in all its wailing, hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, laments what it calls the rise of the extremes at the expense of what I think the Minister, Deputy Coveney, called the sensible centre. The political establishment should recognise that the lesson of what has happened in the United States and much of Europe with the rise of the extreme right is that it is a response precisely to the extremities of inequality that are growing across the globe, which are the responsibility of the so-called sensible centre. It has been under the sensible centre, so-called, that the extremes of inequality that are destabilising our society have grown. I put it to the Taoiseach that there is a remarkable and alarming symmetry between the levels of inequality that form the backdrop to the rise of Mr. Trump and those that exist in this country. That is the real lesson, if we are to take seriously the danger that Mr. Trump and his like represent and if we do not want to see a repeat of it in this country. The levels of inequality in this country have grown shockingly under the Government's watch and under the watch of the Labour Party previously. The number of children suffering deprivation has doubled, we have one of the highest proportion of people working on low pay almost anywhere in the OECD - we are in second place - and the gap between the rich and poor has grown exponentially. All of these factors are witnessed in the United States as well.
I am conscious that two of the Deputy's colleagues-----
One second.
They may not get an opportunity to contribute.
Sure. All of these factors-----
If there is fairness-----
I will be finished in a second.
This is about equality of time.
Four minutes have been taken up and the other Members wish to contribute. I am just being fair to all.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had not interrupted me, I would be finished by now. My point is that the extremities of inequality that have grown in the United States in recent years are mirrored and echoed here under the Government's watch and need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
If the Taoiseach agrees, to be fair to the other two Deputies who wish to contribute, Deputies Adams and Burton, they will ask their questions and he can give an overall response.
I also wonder what the Cabinet committee on social policy does. One of the big injustices on our watch is the incarceration of people in so-called direct provision centres. The Government has failed to implement any of the 173 recommendations of the McMahon report, which was published a year and a half ago. An tUachatarán, Michael D. Higgins, described the proposals as reasonable and practical. He went on to say that the refusal to allow asylum seekers the right to work is heartbreaking and immoral. He said their treatment was narrow and mean and he urged an amnesty for those who have been here for longer than five years. There are 4,301 people in direct provision centres. Some have been there for one and a half years. A total of 604 have lived in these centres for more than five years. They are not allowed to cook for themselves, they are not allowed to work and there is a limit on how far their children can progress through our education system.
Christmas is only seven weeks away. I have visited the direct provision centre in Mosney several times. It is like Long Kesh without the watchtowers, the barbed wire and the armed guards. I know we are short of time and I do not want to be greedy. Will the Taoiseach tell us when the recommendations of the McMahon report will be implemented? Will he update us on the status of the immigration and residency reform Bill? Will he tell us when the International Protection Act 2015 will come into being?
In view of the fact that Ireland and its people face a series of existential crises relating to Brexit and, potentially, in respect of the changes coming into effect in the United States, does the Taoiseach consider that some form of national distributional accord is desirable? Should efforts be made to engage various social partners, employers, trade unionists, farmers, community and voluntary bodies? Will the Taoiseach consider that in the context of the challenges we now face? If the Taoiseach has a different approach in mind, will he indicate how he and his Government intend reconciling all the emerging competing demands for resources and how, as a country, he proposes we might navigate the challenges we face?
Deputy Boyd Barrett raises an interesting position that if the centre forgets the extremities, it causes friction, anxiety, rage, street violence and a growth of the hard right and left. I agree with the sentiment and in many cases it is what has happened. As the Deputy indicated, the so-called sensible centre has forgotten the extremities. It has not happened here. The north inner city is a case in point, because people were neglected and things were left behind. It is critical that Government is not just listening but is engaging and going to act.
The committee deals with a range of social issues, such as discussing the expansion of preschool provision under the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme, the publication of the Government's action plan for educational inclusion, developing the new national disability inclusion strategy, implementing the comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities, establishing a task force on personalised budgeting for people with disabilities, and developing a new national drugs strategy. It also deals with initiatives to address the problems in the north inner city and the establishment of a youth mental health task force. The Cabinet committee is committed to progressing strategies and some of them have happened. There has been the publication of the Action Plan for Education and an increase in the number of special needs assistants to 12,600 to the end of 2016, an increase of 2,235 since September 2011.
There has been the establishment of the Irish refugee programme to take up to 4,000 refugees here in Ireland. With regard to the McMahon report, the vast majority of those who have been here for more than four years have been dealt with, except those in judicial review. New legislation takes effect early in January and we will fast-track applications. Self-catering has been introduced to Mosney and it will be replicated in other places. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, is looking hard at what can happen here.
There has been the introduction of two weeks of paternity leave and an associated social welfare payment, the expansion of the preschool provision under the ECCE programme and the implementation of the McMahon report findings on direct provision, including the upgrading of facilities in direct provision centres. We have seen the establishment and ongoing work under the north inner city task force, as well as the establishment of the youth mental health task force. They have been done. There has been progress in including key new national strategies relating to disability inclusion, Traveller and Roma inclusion, the national women's strategy, integration and the new national drugs strategy. Additionally, budget 2017 provided for a new single affordable child care scheme, with universal subsidy for children aged between six months and three years available for all families. There was also the increase of €5 per week in the State pension and all social welfare payments, a cut in the universal social charge for middle and lower income earners, an increase of €100 in the tax credit for home carers and an increase of €36.5 million in funding for higher and further education. These are important issues.
The best example is the fall in unemployment to 7.7% and an increase in the number of people working to more than 2 million. It is the best route from poverty. We have not done all that we would like to do, and that is why Deputy Burton's point is so important. We must have a managed process to deal with everybody in a fair way so as not to destroy the economic gains made both by the Deputy when she was part of the Government and for the future. Nobody wants to wreck this now.