Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 2018

Vol. 966 No. 7

Leaders' Questions

We will now take Leaders' Questions and I ask Members to have regard to the time allocated.

Yesterday we heard that a Brexit transition period had been agreed to and that the talks would move on to trade. The Tánaiste said the transition period would provide businesses in Ireland and communities in the North with confidence, but the Government had sought a five-year transition period to ensure that confidence. Yesterday we found out that a period of less than two years had been agreed to. We also heard from the Tánaiste that there had been good progress on the issue of the Border, but that is not correct either. What we heard yesterday was a backward step in protecting an open border. The document released yesterday shows that no progress has been made in having a backstop. Last December the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach told us that they had secured an agreement that was cast-iron, bulletproof and rock solid. The European Union proposed a clear legal text on the backstop, but, unfortunately, the British Government rejected it out of hand. The British Prime Minister said the text would, if implemented, threaten the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and that no British Prime Minister could ever agree to it. It is fair to say that right now the United Kingdom has agreed to very little on the Border, although the British Government has agreed to a backstop in the final agreement. Yesterday, however, Mr. David Davis said it would have to be a backstop that was acceptable to both sides. The British Government disagrees completely with what is acceptable to the Irish Government and the European Union. The British have retained the right to come up with a different backstop and have a much more restrictive interpretation of what it might mean. Last December they talked about it applying to one or two sectors. Worryingly, in parliament recently the British Prime Minister referenced the US-Canada border as a potential source of inspiration. We have heard the same reference to it from senior politicians in the United Kingdom among the Brexiteers.

What did the British need from yesterday? They needed agreement on a transition deal, they needed the talk to move on to trade, and they needed to agree to nothing concrete on protecting an open border for Northern Ireland. I put it to the Tánaiste they achieved all of these things. What I saw yesterday was a political fudge to allow the talks to move on and to kick the can down the road on the Border. The fear is that as trade talks begin, an open border will become just one of many competing priorities.

Did the Tánaiste formally seek a five-year transition period and does he, therefore, feel that achieving less than two years is a failure on Ireland's part to achieve a longer and more secure transition period? Why has no progress being made on the backstop when we can see from the document that progress has been made across the agreement? What will the Tánaiste do to ensure the backstop is not watered down in the coming months as negotiations progress? If there is no progress on the backstop, will the Tánaiste seek a pause to the trade talks to ensure we can get clear agreement from the UK and EU sides as to what the legal manifestation of the backstop would actually be?

It is somewhat regrettable that Fianna Fáil seems to be changing its position in terms of how it approaches Brexit from one of consultation with the Government to one of trying to find ways of undermining and criticising what the Government is trying to do. This is regrettable, but it seems to be the case.

Yesterday was a big step forward on the Irish issues. Do not forget that Ireland was the first country in the European Union to ask for a transition arrangement for a number of years. When I was asked in the past what I thought would be necessary in terms of transition I said four years would be closer to what is needed than two years. The EU task force has looked at an appropriate transition period for the EU. It has looked at two years and there is an option to extend it should it be necessary. There is an obvious backstop in terms of the end of 2020, because that is when the multi-annual financial framework and budget of the EU comes to an end. This is an obvious period by which we would look at ending a transition period after Britain leaves the European Union in 12 months. The fact Ireland was the first to ask for this, and the fact what was agreed yesterday was exactly in line with what the EU task force, which includes Ireland, looked for in terms of transition, whereby Britain would be required to ensure the full EU acquis applies for that period, including in areas such as fishing, which are controversial, is a success in negotiation, in terms of what a transition period will look like, to provide certainty for businesses. The only issue where there may be some uncertainty is whether further extension will be necessary at the end of that close to two years.

This is a negotiation. The Deputy seems to expect that all the answers will be provided in the space of a number of days. What we got yesterday on the Irish Border was also a success because since December, until now, the interpretation that most of the British commentary put on the agreement in December was they would first of all look at an option A, which is a comprehensive trade agreement between the EU and UK that would solve the Irish Border issues. If this is not possible they would look at an option B, which is a bespoke solution for Ireland to try to solve the Border issue. If option B is not agreed then they will look at fulfilling their commitment under option C, which is a backstop to maintain full alignment with the customs union and Single Market. Now what we have is an agreement from the British negotiating team to put that backstop in the withdrawal agreement first, so we know there is a floor below which we cannot fall. They have made it very clear now in what they have agreed in the text of the draft withdrawal agreement that Britain has signed up to that the backstop solution for the Border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is in line with paragraph 49 of the joint report we agreed before Christmas. They have also agreed that as a matter of urgency they will engage in negotiation to put a legally operational backstop in place in the withdrawal agreement and that negotiation will start as soon as next week.

The Deputy should inform himself of what constitutes progress.

On domestic preparations for Brexit, Fianna Fáil believes the Tánaiste and the Government have been asleep at the wheel from day one, but, as the Tánaiste well knows, we have supported him on the international aspects. That does not mean, however, that we will not ask him tough questions here when we see that no progress has been made. Yesterday we saw a document that showed progress had been made in the Brexit negotiations but not on the issue of the Border. We know that the British Government has stated it will sign up to a backstop arrangement. We also know that it has rejected emphatically the European Union's interpretation of a backstop.

Does the Deputy have a question?

We also know that the British Prime Minister is talking about the US-Canada border. My question is that if we see no further progress and if we cannot get to agree to a legal text, probably in the next 12 weeks, between the United Kingdom and the European Union on a backstop because of a gulf in the understanding of what it might be, will the Government seek to pause the trade talks in order that we can force through that priority and get agreement and then move back into trade talks?

First, as the Deputy will be aware, I invite constructive criticism on Brexit in order that we can get this right on behalf of the country. This issue is not party political for me and never has been. However, I will not accept people trying to misrepresent what was agreed to yesterday as a lack of progress when all of the informed commentary was welcoming of the step forward. If anything, the political pressure is certainly not on the Government in what was agreed to yesterday. The point I am making is that it is clear from the Barnier task force on the withdrawal treaty that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. What we are saying is that we will have to get agreement on the backstop to ensure it will be legally operable and agreed to between the British and the EU negotiating teams. Without the backstop agreement in place, there will be no withdrawal treaty and no transition arrangements which will be part of the withdrawal treaty. The language is clear. It states the backstop "should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found". In other words, what we have said and what the Taoiseach has reinforced repeatedly is that we have a cast iron guarantee linked with the negotiations in ensuring there will be no physical infrastructure in Ireland linked with the Border and no associated checks or controls, in line what was agreed to in December. We are figuring out and negotiating on the basis of the European Union's draft legal text, on the back of which the United Kingdom, of course, wants to negotiate. If it brings forward proposed changes, we will, of course, look at them, but the backstop will be place. That is the important issue.

Social Justice Ireland has today published a report which focuses on the number of people in the State living in poverty. It makes for startling reading and should serve as a serious wake-up call for the Government. The research shows that 780,000 people are living below the poverty line, but the figure that really jumps out from the report is that more than 100,000 of the 780,000 people have jobs but cannot earn a living wage. The reality is that this group which is perhaps best described as the barely-getting-by class has continued to grow since 2009. They are people who get out of bed early in the morning and work hard as they want to provide for their families. They have modest aspirations to have a decent life, yet they cannot plan for the future. How can they when they cannot make ends meet in the here and now? The casualisation of work, insecure employment and zero-hour contracts are a real problem. Low pay, especially when taken in the context of the soaring cost of living, is also a real problem. Workers on very low wages and in insecure employment are somehow being asked to find the money to pay extortionate rent, grossly inflated insurance premiums and crushing child care costs.

Each bill that comes through their letter box lands with the weight of a sledgehammer. Many of these workers live with a constant sense of vulnerability. They fear that one unexpected occurrence, such as the car breaking down or a family member falling sick, will throw the train off the tracks and into chaos.

I know Fine Gael's mantra is that a job is the surest way to guard against poverty; certainly, it should be. However, Fine Gael says this while turning a blind eye to a recovery in which work does not pay. A job cannot be cheap labour. It must mean the cost of living and more. A job must give any worker the means not only to survive but also to thrive. Good and secure jobs would replace workers' vulnerability with confidence and certainty. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that these principles underpin our economy. The aspiration to a good life cannot be the preserve of the wealthy or the higher echelons of society. To these more than 100,000 workers, the Taoiseach's and the Government's republic of opportunity is, quite frankly, a joke, and a bad one.

Your time is up, Deputy.

Has the Tánaiste read the report from Social Justice Ireland? It makes a number of recommendations, including making tax credits refundable and the introduction of a living wage. Will the Government do those two things?

I thank the Deputy. I have not read that report yet but I will. Over the last ten days or so, while there was somewhat of a break in political activity in this House, a lot of economic data was released. All of it was pretty good news. Last year, people's wages increased by about 2.5%. Almost 70,000 extra people found employment last year; I think the official figure was 66,800. We are seeing more people at work and earning higher wages. That is the way to lift people out of poverty. It is about ensuring that we help people re-skill and find employment, providing decent working conditions for them and ensuring that the minimum wage is also at an appropriate level. This Government and the previous one increased the minimum wage on three separate occasions. Even at a time when unemployment was very high and there was a lot of pressure on the labour force, we were increasing the minimum wage because we felt it was important to ensure that work could pay. That strategy has been working. Work does pay now. We are seeing an economy that is growing employment opportunities, increasing wages and ensuring that people are incentivised to find a decent job, which I am glad to say they can now find all over the country. Of those 66,800 extra jobs, 85% were outside of Dublin. That is also ensuring that we are spreading prosperity as it develops and as we manage it into the future.

I thank the Tánaiste and urge him to read the report. Strong as the economic data might be, this report reflects the fact we are not sharing prosperity. In fact, for 100,000 people at work, the prosperity train has not checked in at all. They still struggle, as I set out, not for ostentatious things, luxuries or extras but for the basics - a new pair of shoes for their child, a warm winter coat and the ability to make their rent, mortgage or household bills without constantly worrying.

I know new jobs have been created and welcome the fact that there is more work in the economy. I want to see people having the dignity and opportunity that work should afford. However, that can only happen when work is secure and when it is remunerated at an appropriate level. To applaud the minimum wage as though that were reaching some high-water level in the economy is not on.

We all know that what is needed is a living wage that allows workers and their families to live decently and without a constant sense of worry. I put it to the Tánaiste again that it is a living wage that his Government must introduce.

I agree with most of what the Deputy just said. Of course, we have to reach out to people who are not benefiting from a growing and expanding economy. Many people in society are under pressure. We know that with respect to housing in particular, which is why we have a hugely ambitious housing plan and social housing financial commitment. Therefore, there is work to do. I am not saying there are not people who need the intervention and help of the State. That is why we have the Low Pay Commission, have acted on its recommendations in the past and will act on its recommendations in the future. However, what we want to do is to create a society as well as an economy that allows people to get a decent wage for a day's work. That is what we have been trying to do during the past seven years, namely, rebuilding an economy and a society from the shocks of very poor political decision-making and bad policy that preceded that. We have come a long way in doing that and we hope to continue to do it for the next number of years.

I am glad the Tánaiste mentioned housing, particularly social housing. As I have said a number of times in recent weeks, a major national demonstration will take place on 7 April to demand precisely that the Government breaks from its current reliance on the private sector, private developers and landlords to deal with the housing emergency and that the State, through the local authorities, builds the council houses we need. In that context, we were provided with a perfect instance on Sunday in an article in The Sunday Business Post that shocked even me, and it takes a fair bit to shock me, concerning Richard Barrett, a developer, formerly of Treasury Holdings, whose loans the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, had to buy out for €1 billion with public money. He is now boasting that he will be the biggest provider of social housing outside the State as part of the Rebuilding Ireland plan. In what I understand were arrangements negotiated with the Minister, Deputy Murphy's Department, Mr. Barrett said he was very pleased with the generosity of the Minister in terms of his time with respect to Bartra Capital, which is financed by Mr. Barrett and international investors, which will provide 1,200 social housing units on a long-term lease basis for 25 years at 95% of market rents.

Mr. Barrett and his investors are very pleased with the deal because they will make an absolute killing out of it. The cost of 1,200 units at current rents nationally will work out at approximately €400,000 per unit for the State for those 25 years, not taking into account likely rent increases. If we multiply that by 1,200, we are talking about in excess of a €400 million cost to the State. The fact that most of them will be built in areas such as Dublin and the urban centres means that the cost will be much higher. Where average rents are higher, we are talking almost certainly in excess of €500 million for 1,200 units. Mr. Barrett, Bartra Capital and Mr. Barrett's property speculator investor friends will make an absolute killing when the State could directly build those houses for a fraction of the cost. At the end of the process the State would own them. We would generate rental revenue, which would come back to the State instead of hundreds of millions of euro going out of the State to Mr. Barrett's friends. When we consider that under Rebuilding Ireland, as well as Bartra Capital, 10,000 of the Minister, Deputy Murphy's planned 50,000 units will be leased in this manner, we are looking at a bill of billions of euro going to private developers to benefit from the social housing emergency they helped to create. How can Tánaiste possibly justify that? It is obscene.

It is not the first time the Deputy and I have had this engagement. I will make a number of comments. The Deputy is right on one aspect. We do have a social housing emergency and we are dealing with it in a way that is multifaceted.

We are encouraging and inviting private investment to solve the problem, as well as committing billions of euro of public money to solve it.

The difference between the Deputy and I is that he does not like the fact that anybody may be able to make a profit on the back of solving or helping to solve a problem. He only wants the State to be involved in social housing and nobody else. The problem with that strategy is that he is expecting the State to do all the heavy lifting. What we have is a policy which is about encouraging private sector investment in social housing solutions as well as complementing massive public sector investment.

We have to continue the trend. Last year, we delivered three times as many social houses as were delivered the previous year. Next year, we will have to deliver three times again. We will have to keep building until we get close to 10,000 units a year being delivered into social housing outcomes to ensure we deal with the scale of the problem.

The Deputy knows that, while we are gearing up to that, we must have a significant reliance on the private rental market, which he also always keeps criticising. The Deputy's solution, however, is not deliverable overnight. It takes time to dramatically scale up the delivery of social housing by the State, approved housing bodies and the private sector. We are looking at different ways of ensuring that when one combines those different approaches, one gets a massive response in terms of delivering new social housing solutions. This is what we are about because of the scale of the problem and the fact that for nearly ten years we did not have the resources to be able to put into social housing. This, in turn, created an extraordinary demand, particularly in Dublin city but also in other places.

The Deputy should not simply pick one element of the solution and ditch it for some ideological reason because he does not like to see somebody investing in solutions on the back of getting a modest return on it. Part of the solution is about getting families into decent homes in which they know they have security of tenure for long periods and out of the pressurised situations in which many of them find themselves today.

I do not know whether the Tánaiste is missing the point or just trying to throw mud in people's eyes. According to the article in The Sunday Business Post, the development in question will cost €400 million. I have just outlined how, at an absolute minimum based on current average rents, at the end of this, the State will have paid for the development and a hell of a lot more on top - it could be in excess of €500 million - but will not own it. Mr. Barrett and his friends can pull out of the lease arrangement after 25 years, walk away with a massively valuable asset and evict social housing tenants, having made an enormous profit. This is against the State spending that same money, which we are paying for either way, directly in building council houses. In that case, we would have security for social housing tenants, rental revenue coming to the State and own the asset at the end.

None of that will happen because the Government is insistent that Mr. Barrett and other property speculators have to make extortionate profits out of a social housing emergency which is blighting the lives of tens of thousands of families.

I respectfully suggest the Deputy is missing the point, not me. Money is not the obstacle to delivering social housing. Local authorities which have good projects on their books are getting the funding they need to progress them. The challenge is capacity and to deliver the scale of social housing we want in time and to meet demand. We have had an enormous increase in housing budgets to deliver on that social housing need. We also want to get on top of that. To complement what we are doing, we want private sector investment, as well as the private sector delivering social housing solutions under long-term leasing arrangements. This means we can get people out of private sector rental accommodation, where they do not have the security of tenure they may be looking for, into long-term leasing arrangements for ten or 20 years, where they will get the kind of security of tenure for which they are looking.

There is a role for the private sector in adding to the number of social housing solutions being delivered.

That will be done at €400,000 or €500,000 a unit.

The scale of delivery that is needed, and which I think the Deputy is looking for, cannot be delivered purely through local authority-led schemes.

As the Tánaiste will be aware, the activities of Cambridge Analytica in the UK and around the world were dramatically uncovered at the weekend. This company engaged in sinister manipulation of the electoral and democratic process in many countries. It stopped at nothing to profit from the nefarious use of data to undermine the political process. The Tánaiste will also be aware that a fundamental flaw in Facebook's data protection rules has been exposed. The data of 50 million users was taken without their knowledge and used to steer the course of the 2016 election campaign in the United States. As the Tánaiste knows, the Data Protection Bill 2018 is going through the Seanad at the moment and is due to come to this House. One of the many weaknesses in the Bill is the provision in section 43 allowing personal data to be gathered in this country for political purposes, particularly in elections. As the Internet knows very few boundaries, we could be a home base for that sort of activity in different parts of the world.

We are at the start of a referendum campaign which is critical for this country. It is important that it is conducted by proper means and in a way that is fair to all sides. There is a real lacuna in our legal system at present. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has said it will not be responsible for regulating advertising in the referendum process, even though Facebook is now a broadcasting platform in many instances. Facebook has said it will put advertisements in newspapers to steer people away from possible fake news. I do not know how that will work. The Data Protection Commissioner seems to be powerless to do anything other than to advise Irish householders and individuals who will vote in the referendum how to trace where advertising has come from and how to turn it off or measure its effect.

In light of the clear realities of where we are, and given the importance of this country having the very highest data and digital standards, will the Government consider amending section 43 of the Data Protection Bill 2018, which proposes to allow private data to be used for political purposes? This is one of many amendments that need to be made. What can the Referendum Commission do to ensure there is real transparency in the forthcoming referendum campaign? When people advertise on social media platforms - I understand Twitter is not going to take advertisements, but Facebook will do so - there needs to be absolute clarity about where that advertising is coming from and who has paid for it so that we might have some balance and some truth. We should not allow the various international and other interests who might want to pervert our referendum campaign to have their way.

The Deputy has asked a lot of questions about this serious matter. This morning, the Cabinet spent some time discussing many of the issues he has raised. I will set out the Government response on this so far. The Data Protection Bill 2018 is coming through the Seanad at the moment. We have approved a Report Stage amendment which is not directly related to the issues raised by Deputy Ryan. After the Bill has been passed by the Seanad, it will be considered on the floor of the Dáil and we will have an opportunity to tease through these issues in some detail. We need to ensure the Data Protection Commissioner is adequately resourced. There has been a dramatic increase in the level of resources made available to the Data Protection Commissioner and her office. I think her resources have increased fourfold over the past three years. This year, the number of staff will increase significantly to approximately 140 from just over 80 last year.

We are trying to learn lessons and take on board legitimate issues which are being raised by Opposition parties. For example, Fianna Fáil recently proposed a Private Members' Bill on online advertising and social media transparency. Although we did not accept that legislation at the time, on the back of it we have set up an interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, to ensure we are looking at all these issues and responding appropriately.

It is probably the SCU.

There is a series of responses that are needed to ensure we will have legislation which is fit for purpose and an Office of the Data Protection Commissioner which is well resourced and on top of what it needs to be on top of. We need to look across Departments at what can or should be done to ensure consumers will not be exposed to fake news and that their data will not be abused for that purpose by way of the data mining we saw in the Facebook case which was exposed in the United Kingdom in recent days. There is a comprehensive discussion taking place in government on this issue and we are backing it up with significant increases in resources. I look forward to the data protection legislation being brought before the House when we will have an opportunity to tease through some of the questions the Deputy has raised.

I may have raised a lot of points, but I also asked two questions. Will the Government amend section 43, about which the Tánaiste said nothing, and will it do anything that will affect the referendum? To hear that the Cabinet has been talking about this issue is very interesting, but it does not answer either question. I suggest we take the Bill proposed by Deputy James Lawless and put it through the House at speed in order that it would be in place in time to have a real effect during the referendum campaign. I am sure we could quickly agree to do so across the House. We need a money message from the Minister for Finance and it might break his silence in that area.

By way of the House taking the lead and showing an example, I have a suggestion for all parties and representatives who advertise on Facebook. I do it because it is highly effective and can be targeted. Should we not declare what we are doing in advertising on Facebook or online to start to create a culture of transparency? Other than saying the Cabinet is talking about the issue and resourcing the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner which I welcome and which has been happening for many a year, what specficially will the Government do? Will it put through the Bill proposed by Deputy James Lawless? If not, what tools will the Referendum Commission have to bring about transparency in this area? Will the Tánaiste declare his own advertising on Facebook?

The Minister is looking at making a considered amendment to section 43. With respect, it would not be reasonable for me to outline during Leaders' Questions what that detailed amendment will be. We are looking at it and will have an opportunity to tease through it with other political parties when the legislation is brought through the various Stages in the Dáil. The Referendum Commission cannot really get under way in the work it needs to do until we pass the legislation which I hope we will do this week. That will allow the commission to get on with its job of providing accurate information in order that in the upcoming referendum the people will be able to make an informed choice on the basis of the facts. I suspect there will be a lot more debate on the issue. Our advice is that the legislation proposed by Deputy James Lawless is simply not fit for purpose, but that does not mean that the issues raised in it do not require full consideration; they do. However, I would like to ensure we will consider the issues involved which we will have an opportunity to do in the context of the data protection legislation which will be brought before the House in the weeks ahead.

Top
Share