Jennifer Murnane O'Connor
Question:1. Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 will meet next. [61982/21]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committees
Niamh Smyth
Question:2. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 will meet next. [61983/21]
Aindrias Moynihan
Question:3. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 is due to meet next. [61985/21]
Alan Kelly
Question:4. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 last met and next plans to meet. [3312/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the Cabinet committee on Covid-19. [4365/22]
Mick Barry
Question:6. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Covid-19 will next meet. [4631/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 will meet next. [4698/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:8. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Covid-19 will meet next. [4701/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on Covid-19 met most recently on 17 December. The date of the next meeting has not been set.
Following public health advice, the Government agreed that from 22 January, most of the public health measures that were in place could be removed, including guidance in relation to household visiting; early closing time for hospitality and events; capacity restrictions for outdoor events, including sporting fixtures; capacity restrictions for indoor events, including weddings; formal requirements for physical distancing, in general 2 m; use of pods for indoor activities; sectoral protective measures in hospitality, including physical distancing; restrictions on nightclubs; and requirements to have a valid digital Covid certificate to enter various premises.
A return to physical attendance in workplaces on a phased basis, as appropriate to each sector, commenced on 24 January. To support the transition back to physical attendance in the workplace and the continued safe operation of workplaces, a transitional protocol has been prepared. It draws on lessons learned to date, along with the latest public health guidance. It follows discussion and agreement at the Labour Employer Economic Forum.
A number of public health measures will remain in place until 28 February 2022, including requirements for mask wearing in all settings for which this is currently regulated and protective measures in schools and early learning and care facilities.
There remains a need for ongoing close monitoring of the virus. The pandemic is not over and the emergence of new variants with increased levels of transmissibility, immune escape and-or virulence remains a risk both nationally and globally, particularly in the context of continued high levels of infection and variance in vaccine supply and uptake globally.
We will need to continue to monitor the ongoing risk from the disease and take steps individually and collectively in our everyday lives to keep this risk under control. This includes continuing to follow the current advice for those with symptoms, cases and close contacts and continued focus on maximising the uptake of the primary and booster vaccination. To this end, I encourage those who have not yet received their booster vaccine to avail of one of the many options available through the vaccination centres, pharmacies or GPs.
While I welcome the restrictions lifted last week, I have concerns about how people with medical cards are being looked after. I have been contacted by people with medical cards who were denied dental appointments. I sat with one elderly gentleman in my office last week and we went through a list of dentists together. We finally finding one in Carlow who sees patients under the General Medical Services, GMS, Contract. This is unacceptable.
Are there fees for Covid consultations with GPs? I have had a few phone calls about that issue. Now that society has reopened, it is important that people who want to see their GP about non-Covid-related illnesses can see them and are not waiting a long time for appointments. I acknowledge doctors' surgeries are doing their best. People who are waiting on hospital appointments, also non-Covid related, must get them as soon as possible.
A public health reform expert advisory group has been set up by the Minister. It has 30 members and is chaired by Professor Hugh Brady, a former president of UCD. Will there be any formal review by the Government and has any model been decided on?
During Covid - we are still in Covid but during the really bad times - we had to make certain allowances in relation to hospitals. I want to raise the issue of University Hospital Limerick, UHL. Colleagues across politics have raised this matter. UHL is my local hospital. There are record numbers of people on trolleys in the hospital. Last week, it was 97, on Wednesday it was 111 and the figure for the whole month of January was 1,300. The overcrowding is 132% higher than it was last year. There is a systemic issue here. I have been fighting on this issue for a decade. The hospital is not big enough. There will have to be a change in pathways for the use of Nenagh, Ennis and St. John's hospitals. We have to do something because the management and staff at UHL cannot do any more. The hospital is too small for the population in the area.
When the Government is selecting an elective hospital for the future, the first base should be in the mid-west. Whether on the grounds of one of the current hospitals or with one of these hospitals, it should be in the mid-west because that is where the biggest crisis is. That is a long-term solution. In the short term, we need a change in pathways and also €41 million more in funding to bring UHL up to the required service of a model 4 hospital.
Last September, the Taoiseach said that an evaluation of the State's Covid's response would begin early this year to consider how the country performed for the purposes of learning lessons to be applied in the future. Instead, what has transpired is the establishment of an expert advisory group whose scope is limited to the public health service. It is my strong view that there is a need for a public inquiry that is time-bound to consider all aspects of Government decision-making because there was no element of public service provision that did not face decisions it would not ordinarily have to make, while having to adapt services to an unprecedented changing environment.
A public inquiry is, in my view, the only mechanism by which the experiences of civic society and the outcomes of political and public policy decisions can be thoroughly explored and evaluated. This process does not have to be drawn out or adversarial but it must be independent, fit for purpose and human rights compliant. There will be hard questions for Government. The Taoiseach was a member of multiple Cabinets that presided over a deeply fragmented public health service. Nursing homes, critical care, domestic violence services, disability and dementia services, mental health and addiction care were all casualties of an historically under-resourced public system. In the absence of a public inquiry, how can the Taoiseach's commitment to a full evaluation of the State's response to Covid be delivered on?
We have to also acknowledge that Covid-19 remains with us and the need for robust and resourced testing, tracing and vaccination programmes remain. We need clarity from the Taoiseach on what that will look like into the future.
The Covid crisis has opened up a debate about remote working. When workers won the right to join a union, they did not win the right to request their employer to consider allowing a union. When women won the right to vote, they did not win the right to request the Government of the day to consider allowing them a vote. The Government seems to have a problem with understanding the concept of workers' rights. Coming from the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar, that does not surprise me - the man is a down-the-line Tory. However, the Taoiseach proclaims his working-class roots. He was at it here in the Dáil last week. He projects himself as a believer in workers' rights but when it comes to remote working, a key issue for workers concerned with work-life balance, long commutes, pricey petrol and so on, there is not a scintilla of difference between him and the Tánaiste. The Taoiseach is not supporting workers' rights here. He is supporting a miserable right to request. Why is that?
On a similar issue of rewarding workers who played a critical role during Covid, obviously we all accept and welcome the announcement that front-line workers are to get a pandemic bonus, although it should be extended to carers, as has been discussed. There is no doubt that group were on the front line of the Covid response. What does the Taoiseach have to say, if he is not willing to extend that bonus to them, to groups such as retail workers and those who worked in supermarkets? They are traditionally low paid but they kept food on the table during the Covid pandemic. Without them, we would not have got through the pandemic. They are very low paid, and I might add to that private security workers. They work in many of those places, also worked all through the pandemic and are incredibly low paid. What is the Government going to give in terms of a pandemic bonus and reward, long term, to those groups of workers? Does the Taoiseach agree they deserve something like what the Dunnes Stores workers have won, namely, a 10% pay increase, or that the minimum wage would be increased dramatically to something like €15 an hour, as against the abysmally low level of pays these workers currently suffer? If we are serious about respecting the role they played, what long-term dividends is the Government going to give them in the aftermath of Covid?
Yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs published its internal review of what it calls workplace arrangements in Iveagh House, a euphemism for champagne-gate on 17 June. This was a time when many people were not able to attend funerals of loved ones and thousands of people received fines for either organising or attending social gatherings in breach of the regulations in place at the time, and this report is a whitewash from start to finish. The narrative is the idea of it being an impromptu event, but the review cannot therefore explain why at least two members of staff were present at the social event who were not scheduled to come to work that day.
Most glaring, it is a whitewash for the Minister responsible, namely, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney. The review did not even question or interview him about, for example, what he experienced when he went there. He was there about one hour and a half after the champagne corks had been popped, when clearly a social event of sorts was still continuing. As for what he did about it, he clearly did nothing. He was not interviewed in his capacity as the Minister responsible, with whom, ultimately, the buck has to stop.
Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Minister about why he deleted at least one text message from his phone - this is not the first time we have heard of that - about this party? Most important, will the Taoiseach please agree the Minister needs to come before the Dáil and answer questions about this, or is he going to collude in a cover-up?
I thank the Deputies for the range of questions. Deputy Murnane O'Connor raised pertinent issues about getting access to dentists, GPs and acute hospital services, as well as getting access to GPs more generally in respect of non-Covid illnesses. Obviously, Covid has had an impact on our health services, as did the cyberattack last year. In respect of dentists, I have made the point that contractual discussions are ongoing with the Irish Dental Association regarding fees and so forth, and additional funding has been provided in that regard.
I again pay tribute to the work of GPs during the pandemic on a range of fronts. Our health service stood the test throughout the pandemic despite what has been said, relatively speaking and compared with other countries in terms of mortality figures and the degree to which our ICUs held up notwithstanding significant pressures. We need to thank those involved. GPs in particular, through the booster campaign before Christmas and working with pharmacies, led a very important campaign to reduce the impact of Omicron, particularly in terms of hospital and ICU admissions, deaths and severe illness. People can take things like that for granted in the aftermath, but it was a very effective and well-run booster campaign that had a huge impact.
I get the point that we need now to open access because one of our big concerns relates to delayed diagnosis across a range of illnesses. That is a huge concern and we have to be alert. There will have to be intensive resourcing in the next 12 months to deal with this undoubted legacy from Covid, be it in cancer care, heart disease or a range of other areas where normal diagnostics or regular screening did not take place. I have some concerns about that and we will need to keep a close focus on it.
To respond to Deputy Kelly, we need to have a look at what is happening in the mid-west, where there has been an historical underprovision of beds. I support the idea of an elective facility but, under Sláintecare, that proposal has not emerged in respect of the mid-west. What has come back to us relates to elective facilities for Galway, Cork and Dublin, but I am open to the idea of an elective facility for the mid-west. I think an elective-only facility is the way to go and the health service needs to move more quickly than it normally does. It does not have to be a long-term provision but should rather be a short to medium-term one. Ideally, it should be on health ground lands to fast-track it.
Turning to Deputy McDonald, we need an evaluation and it is important that it be comprehensive in respect of everything that took place, with a view to learning lessons. In my view, it has to be about learning lessons. We do not want future public health officials or public servants to be hamstrung or looking over their shoulders if there is a new crisis, conscious that another inquiry may be conducted into what they are doing in the middle of that crisis. In the middle of a crisis, we need speed, we need people to make decisions and we need people to have courage to make decisions, and not to cover their back all the time or do box-ticking exercises. All international responses to crises have this as a basic standard, whereby we look back to evaluate, learn and ensure those lessons are applied to future pandemics and crises. That should be the spirit of the approach and the Government will have to work on what the best model will be. Prior to Christmas and throughout the Christmas period, we were very focused on vaccination. Once that evaluation and inquiry is in train, it takes all the senior front-line people out of working on the pandemic, and all hands were on deck for Omicron during that period. We will come back to the House with proposals. The public health reform expert advisory group is there to focus and identify learnings from the public health components of the response to Covid-19. It is important that we have a strong and robust embedded public health system into the future.
Deputies Boyd Barrett and Barry asked questions in respect of workers. Throughout the pandemic, we have been very strong in supporting workers, be that through the pandemic unemployment payment, the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, or the Covid restrictions support scheme, CRSS. We have provided a range of measures to support the economy and underpin employment. The best outcomes for workers relate to access to a job and the ability to get back to normal as quickly as we can. As was commented on earlier in the House, there is also the recognition payment, primarily for front-line healthcare workers.
Cabinet Committees
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet.. [2221/22]
Bríd Smith
Question:10. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach if his Department has commissioned any polling of the general public related to possible or existing policies within the remit of his Department for the period 1 January 2021 to date; if so, if he will provide details of the policies; and the costs incurred for each individual poll. [2223/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:11. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [2225/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:12. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [3242/22]
Alan Kelly
Question:13. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [3313/22]
Cian O'Callaghan
Question:14. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [3537/22]
Jennifer Murnane O'Connor
Question:15. Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [3619/22]
Mick Barry
Question:16. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [4629/22]
Paul McAuliffe
Question:17. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [4724/22]
John Lahart
Question:18. Deputy John Lahart asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on housing will next meet. [4725/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 18, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on housing met nine times in 2021 and met again on Monday, 24 January. The next meeting is planned for Thursday, 3 March. This committee works to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of the programme for Government commitments regarding housing and related matters. The focus of recent meetings has been on implementation of the Housing for All plan. Housing for All is the most ambitious housing plan in the history of our State and contains a range of actions and measures to ensure more than 300,000 homes are built by 2030. This figure includes 90,000 social, 36,000 affordable purchase and 18,000 cost-rental homes. The plan is backed by the highest ever State investment in housing.
Last week, the Government published the second quarterly progress report, for quarter 4 of 2021. It shows significant progress towards the fundamental reform of the housing system, setting the course to significantly increase the supply of housing and provide a sustainable housing system into the future. Recent data from the CSO show that, despite the disruption caused by Covid in 2021, a total of 20,433 new dwellings were completed in the year, with a significant pick-up in apartment development. The pipeline data are also strong, with more than 30,000 commencements in 2021, the highest since 2008. Of 213 actions in Housing for All, a total of 123 either have been completed or are being delivered on an ongoing basis.
We have introduced measures, such as Project Tosaigh, to activate existing planning permissions and accelerate delivery of houses in key strategic locations. It is clear that the sector is rebounding from what has been a very difficult two years and we are confident that the target for delivery of 24,600 homes in 2022 will be met. Employment is back to pre-pandemic levels and apprenticeship registrations are increasing significantly. An international recruitment campaign will get under way shortly to further bolster capacity in the sector.
The actions outlined in the plan are backed by over €4 billion in annual guaranteed State investment in housing over the coming years. It is clear we also need to attract up to €10 billion of private capital into the market each year to meet our targets and ensure we deliver social, affordable, cost-rental and private homes at the substantial scale required right across the country. Through Housing for All, the Government has implemented a number of measures to make homes more affordable to buy or to rent. The new local authority home loan is open for applications, the help-to-buy scheme has been extended, we are scaling up the delivery of cost-rental homes and rent in rent pressure zones has been capped at 2%, or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. We are also continuing to support our most vulnerable, those experiencing homelessness and those who have more complex housing needs. The Cabinet committee will continue to focus on delivery of the Housing for All plan.
This Friday in the District Court, behind the Four Courts, five individuals and families - working-class people - are going to pay the price for the Taoiseach’s failure to address the housing crisis. The case of the St. Helen’s Court apartment complex, where a vulture fund is going to evict the families, really tells the story of this housing crisis. They have always played their rent. The vulture fund is evicting them for no other reason than it wants to increase the value of the property – for profit. Faced with homelessness, they go to the council as they are on the housing list, but the council does not have any council houses for them because there are 5,000 families on the housing list. They are told to go and find a HAP tenancy but the council will only give them €1,000 to find a HAP tenancy and average rents in the area are €2,200. In other words, they are absolutely goosed. These are very worried people. What is the Taoiseach going to do for these people facing homelessness? Otherwise, they and many like them are going to be driven into homelessness over the coming weeks because we have not delivered the rent controls, the tenants’ rights and the affordable rents that people need.
The Taoiseach in his introduction mentioned affordable, social, cost-rental and help-to-buy housing but he did not say a word about strategic housing development, SHD, which is practically all build to let. In Drimnagh, Crumlin, Walkinstown and Ballyfermot, we have been swamped with applications for strategic housing development, which means there will be no sustainable communities and no permanent homes for the tens of thousands of families who are on the waiting list in those areas. It also means another thing, which is that sustainable communities will not be built. The Taoiseach is going to be asked by the community in Cherry Orchard to come out to visit them. They have been subjected to a massive increase in antisocial behaviour, which arises from the social conditions. I hope the Taoiseach does come to Cherry Orchard but he will be shocked. When I moved into Ballyfermot 30 years ago, Cherry Orchard had one shop and it still has one shop, but no cafés and chemist or post office. It does have a very good national school, which the community fought for, and a good equine centre. Beyond that, there are no facilities yet a strategic housing development is being given planning permission to go into that area, with hundreds more apartments, which probably means a few thousand added to the population. Where is the thought for infrastructure for sustainable communities?
I have quite incredible correspondence with me from Augustus Cullen Law Solicitors on behalf of Ardstone Homes Limited, which is a development and investment company. They are threatening letters to a Tidy Towns group, Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group, threatening to sue it for defamation. Why? It is because the group has stood up for proper planning against abuse of the SHD process and initiated two judicial review processes with Ardstone as a respondent. In the words of the Tidy Towns group’s solicitor, Fred Logue, the litigation threatened in the letter amounts to SLAPP, strategic litigation against public participation, in other words, bullying. To quote Mr. Logue, it is litigation aimed not at obtaining the stated relief, but rather calculated to intimidate and silence civil society, environmental defenders and persons exercising their fundamental rights. It goes on to say that it is a calculated attempt to punish Mr. Logue’s client for exercising its rights and to effectively shut it down. Will the Taoiseach condemn the abuse of the legal process to attempt to intimidate Tidy Towns groups which are attempting to stand up for their community?
The Taoiseach’s housing strategy and policy is a fiasco and a disaster. If he was to listen to those we call generation rent and their experiences, that would be apparent to him, as it would if he was to observe the clear generation gap, the generation cleavage that exists right across this State and reflect on the fact a whole generation of people have been locked out not alone from any aspiration to own their own home, but even to afford a stable, sustainable roof over their heads. I have said this to the Taoiseach many times but I say it to him again.
The Taoiseach has lauded his achievements with regard to homelessness. However, a report published by the Dublin Region Homeless Executive reflects a different story, in fact, a steady rise in homelessness for single people, families and children throughout last year, a dramatic drop-off in exit from homelessness compared with 2019 and 2020, and a very high level of long-term homelessness. We know from previous data that there can be a December hiatus in the Christmas period and numbers can drop but then they surge again.
The decision of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to lift the Covid-19 ban on evictions has made a really bad situation worse. Will the Taoiseach intervene on that score at least and effect some minor change in those circumstances?
Home Building Finance Ireland was set up to provide finance to private developers at market rates for commercially viable housing developments. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach would look into what I am about to raise with him. There is a small development funding product for developments under ten units through this organisation. However, while it will fund projects of between five and nine residential units, the rules limit access. The size of the loan must be from €1 million to include land purchase up to 50% and development funding. Small builders who want to borrow less than €1 million, for example, those who want to borrow €500,000 or €600,000 instead of €1 million, are excluded from the scheme. In rural parts of Ireland in particular and on urban infill sites in towns and villages, they are excluded because they do not need €1 million and, for example, might only need €500,000. These types of schemes are also lower risk because, generally, small builders know who they are building for as they are normally local people. They want to limit their risk, build in small phases and not be too leveraged, if the Taoiseach understands me. Will the Taoiseach look at the limit to see if there is a way in which it can be changed to facilitate small amounts of building in rural and urban areas, where it is necessary?
For more than a year, I have been raising with the Taoiseach the issue of standards in privately run emergency accommodation for people who are homeless. I have also raised this with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. While these are privately run homeless shelters, they are in receipt of public funds. I want to read a quote from one young woman about what she found when she came back to a hostel recently. She said:
All my stuff was robbed, which I was told would be safe and that only staff had access to rooms. I rang and the supervisor was telling me to go away and not be annoying him. Only the staff had keys to the room. I am only young and I have a job. I can’t be in hostels. I have chosen to sleep outside some nights rather than that.
This is in publicly funded hostels where people cannot leave their personal possessions without fear of them being robbed. When they raise a complaint with the management of the hostel that we pay for, they are told to go away and leave them alone. This is not acceptable. When is HIQA going to be asked to conduct independent inspections of emergency accommodation for homeless people?
I know it is clear we need to build housing but we need to make it affordable. I still meet people who do not qualify for the local authority home loan and they do not qualify for social housing.
We talk about supply being the issue, but there have been other issues, including a backlog in housing applications. I thank the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage for addressing that by means of fast-tracking the appointment of new staff. The housing department in Carlow has five new staff and Kilkenny has six new staff. However, I had a family with me yesterday who are in receipt of income supplement. They are above the threshold to qualify for social housing. I ask that this be looked at. We cannot have a family on family income supplement who are not qualified to go on the local authority housing list.
There is one other matter, which I know the Taoiseach will address. There are significant issues with the local authority adaptation grants and the policy relating to children. There does not seem to be a policy in place. It all seems to be for elderly people. I welcome that support, but lately I have met many children who need grants. This is a major issue. I thank the Taoiseach.
A developer was told by Deloitte last year that an apartment project in Cork city would only be viable, or, in other words, profitable, if rents of €2,800 per month were charged for two-bedroom apartments. Perhaps the most famous apartment project in Cork, the Elysium, was left half-empty due to extortionate rents. Why does the Government persist with promoting this build-to-rent strategic housing development housing model? This matter has come up in a number of contributions and it can currently be seen with the planning application for 191 apartments at Hewitt's Mill in Blackpool in Cork city. Does the Taoiseach accept that for-profit apartment development is not what we need in Cork or elsewhere, that these build-to-rent developments are driving up the average price of rent, and that the focus instead needs to be on the provision of social and affordable housing and apartments?
I thank the Deputies for raising those wide-ranging issues. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to the five families in St. Helen's Court and the challenges that they now face.
Court on Friday.
They are facing eviction and will be in court on Friday. I do not know the specifics of what will transpire in the court case but, suffice it to say, every effort should be made to prevent eviction, particularly when families have real challenges in securing alternative accommodation, whether through the housing list or through the HAP system. There are rules governing evictions and the basis upon which evictions can be granted.
The law allows this one.
I do not know the specifics of why this-----
Sale by a vulture fund.
The matter is before the courts. In my view, every effort should be made to prevent eviction. I do not know whether or not the local authority has been involved with the tenants. That should be pursued.
Deputy Bríd Smith raised the issue of affordable social and rental housing. Councillor Daithí de Róiste was in touch with me about what has transpired in the past week. He said that the committee would contact me to ask me to visit the area, which I will do. I am familiar with the facilities in Cherry Orchard, particularly the school facilities. I was in government when that was last developed. There was a comprehensive solution at the time. In the context of sustaining communities, a Cabinet sub-committee is developing a policy position in respect of key areas such as social and community development, housing and giving communities the tools to be safe, with an emphasis on childcare, early education and so on. It is somewhat similar to the drug task forces we had in the past and to the area partnerships that were developed. That is the way to proceed in order to give areas supports that are required. Officials in my Department are working on that agenda as I speak.
With regard to Deputy Paul Murphy's question, nobody should ever intimidate a Tidy Towns committee that is pursuing its objectives and work. It would be wrong to do so. I am not familiar with the specifics of the case the Deputy raised, but, in my view, Tidy Towns committees do exceptional work. They should be supported in that process and should not be intimidated by anybody.
Deputy McDonald referred to the housing policies and described them as a fiasco and a disaster. They are anything but that. Significant progress has been made, notwithstanding the impact of Covid-19 on housing construction in 2020 and 2021. The 30,000 commencements are significant. We need to build on that. The Deputy does not have to appreciate it, but I find it hard to reconcile what she said with the constant serial objections to good housing schemes in circumstances where there has been an abundance of debate about mixed solutions, including a combination of social, affordable and private housing. Projects such as that relating to O'Devaney Gardens went on for too long. It is a shame on everybody that they were allowed to go on for so long.
I will follow up on Deputy Kelly's questions.
We are out of time.
There are many questions here.
I am faced with a situation with many questions and less than ten minutes.
I take the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's point. Deputy O'Callaghan has been a consistent-----
We are moving on to question No. 19.
Cabinet Committees
Paul Murphy
Question:19. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [2226/22]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:20. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [2176/22]
Gary Gannon
Question:21. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education last met; and when it is next due to meet. [3076/22]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Question:22. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education last met and will next meet. [3335/22]
Alan Kelly
Question:23. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [3314/22]
Mick Barry
Question:24. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4630/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:25. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4699/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:26. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4702/22]
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Question:27. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4711/22]
Cathal Crowe
Question:28. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4713/22]
Cormac Devlin
Question:29. Deputy Cormac Devlin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4810/22]
Niamh Smyth
Question:30. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on education will next meet. [4811/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 to 30, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on education oversees implementation of the programme for Government commitments in the area of education, including the management of Covid in schools. This committee last met on 13 May 2021. It will meet again shortly. I have regular engagement with Ministers at Cabinet and individually to discuss priority issues relating to their Departments. The three party leaders met the Minister for Education and her officials a fortnight ago and recently had contact too. In addition, a number of meetings have been held between my officials and officials from relevant Departments since the establishment of the Cabinet committee in July 2020. That includes the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science too.
The Taoiseach admitted a year ago that the leaving certificate was inflexible and that a new system was needed. Here we are, after two years of no traditional leaving certificate, as it is called, and now the Government is absolutely determined, against the wishes of 68% of students, to drive through a return to a so-called traditional leaving certificate. In addition to the usual anxieties that cause more than 50% of students to suffer from physical or mental illness as a result of the leaving certificate, are inadequacy of preparation and so on. The announcements did not even include mention of extra third level places to reduce competition. Instead, what is proposed is a recipe for massive points inflation, severe pressure on students and the continuation of this unnecessary rat race. Will the Taoiseach please reconsider the position and provide the investment to ensure that there will be places at third level for all who want them?
It is disappointing that the Government has failed to hear and to respond to the reasonable request from leaving certificate students for fairness and recognise the level of disruption that they have suffered over the past two years. Here is what at least some of them are saying on social media platforms, which are the chosen platforms of this generation. Isobel stated: "I am so upset, disheartened and stressed right now I could cry." She also stated: "Just had the mental breakdown of the century to my parents." Ben stated: "...hard to believe that my year may be the only year in the history of the LC at this kind of disadvantage." Alisa stated: "I’m stressed enough as it is about the leaving cert so if I have to sit a traditional leaving cert everything is gonna be worse. We have missed too much time." Emma stated,: "the past two years have been exhausting for everyone, how can 17/18 yr olds be expected to sit important exams after missing out on crucial educational time? Disgrace". Emma is quite correct.
One of the justifications the Government has given today for not affording students a hybrid leaving certificate is that 25% of the students do not have a junior certificate. I have never liked the leaving certificate but one of the arguments made in its favour by its proponents is that it is a fair exam that everybody sits on the same day. Now we have a scenario where three out of four students have had the practice of sitting a State examination but one out of four has not. Automatically, the logic of fairness goes out the window because some students have an advantage.
We had two reports, one from the Ombudsman for Children and the other from the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, which clearly show that the pandemic has had a worse impact on children from disadvantaged areas than children from other communities around Ireland. Some students did not have access to laptops or remote study options, some missed school for a multitude of reasons, some did not have class time because their teachers were out sick and so on. Not every student experienced the pandemic in the same way but they are all being asked to sit the same examination, one that will have a real impact on their future. It is really unfair. The Government is grotesquely incorrect in pursuing this course.
The Taoiseach can kiss goodbye to the votes of 60,000 leaving certificate students. As far as they are concerned they have been betrayed by the Minister for Education and the Government and they are not wrong. These students are a credit to themselves for the way they have campaigned, lobbied, gone on radio and protested. They gave the Government every chance to listen but it has decided not to do so. To add insult to injury, the Government is now forcing students to compete between themselves for a limited number of places at third level. The CAO deadline is today. It is bad enough to do that at any time but worse again in a pandemic year. I put it to the Taoiseach that his Government should invest heavily in third level to train the extra nurses, doctors, teachers, apprentices and others we need and offer far more college places next year for our leaving certificate students.
I urge the Taoiseach to go down to his local second level school at the next opportunity, to walk into the sixth year class and observe the students all wearing masks, with the windows open, to count the number of teachers and students who are out because of the pandemic, and tell them that everything is going back to normal. The Taoiseach knows that if the schools were closed, the Department would find a mechanism to deliver a hybrid leaving certificate. All of the excuses the Taoiseach is trotting out about the junior certificate or the idea that school profiling was going to be essential just do not stand up to any scrutiny. The fact is the Government is dealing with a very conservative Department of Education and is failing to take it on. I implore the Taoiseach to go down to his local second level school and tell the students, with their masks on, the windows open, and the teachers out, that they can just go back to normal. The Government has failed to take on the Department of Education and its conservatism and it has failed the students.
The leaving certificate should be scrapped. It was never a fair exam. It always discriminated against those with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas and all of that has been compounded and made worse in the teeth of a pandemic. Will the Government take the bold step now, which could get us out of this mess, and say that everybody should be able to study the higher or further education course or apprenticeship of their choice? Imagine that. Imagine what it would be like if people got to study what they wanted to study at third level. It would make even more sense given the chronic shortage of psychologists, doctors, nurses, construction workers and so on. You name it, we have skills shortages and yet we want to maintain a stressful, gate-keeping exercise which makes it more difficult for our young people to advance.
Last year when the Taoiseach assumed office we were presented with a situation in Cork where nearly 40 families had no special education place for their children. Since that time, we have opened a special needs school in Carrigaline and last week the Minister for Education confirmed to me in the House that a site has been also selected in my own town of Glanmire for another special education school. Given the problems we have had in Cork and the bottleneck that was recognised in the past, will the Taoiseach assure the House of his full support in ensuring that the Glanmire site will be progressed as quickly as possible.
I am afraid we have run out of time so the Taoiseach has only one minute to respond to all Deputies.
I appreciate the work Deputy O'Sullivan has been doing on special education and can confirm that the Government will support the acquisition of that site.
On the broader issue of the leaving certificate, things are not going back to normal, as Deputy Ó Ríordáin has suggested. This exam will not be the same as that which would have been put together in 2018 or 2019 in that about one third of the content has been cut back. The Minister did listen to the students. No one has come up with any alternative on the accredited grades. The fact that 25% of students did not sit the junior certificate and their data could not be used in an alternative accredited grades system is a very important point which is just being ignored in terms of any responses.
Students wanted clarity and certainty and that has been given. They also wanted greater choice on the exam papers and in the oral exams and that has been given, quite substantially. I went through some instances of that earlier today in respect of the English, maths, biology, art and accountancy papers. Very significant additional choice has been given to students and the burden reduced. It will not compare to 2019 or 2018 because of the greater choice being given.
The other key issue that students were anxious about was that they would not be disadvantaged in terms of grade inflation relative to the students of 2021. That has been also agreed by the Minister and that will be the case via the marking scheme and standardisation. The one area where the Minister could not respond was on accredited grades; not because she did not want to but because it would not have been as fair as last year. The Department could not devise a system that would have been as fair as last year's system, simply because we could not use the data of about 25% of the students because they had not done the junior certificate.
It is not about taking on the Department. I do not believe the Department is conservative on curriculum reform. There will be further reforms of the leaving certificate, as there should be. I would say to Deputy Boyd Barrett that the one aspect of the leaving certificate that has endure is fairness.
It is absolutely unfair.
Irrespective of background, in terms of access to higher level, it is not who you know in this country. It is crude, I accept that-----
Look at the figures-----
-----and it needs to be reformed.
-----90% of people from Dublin 6, 10% from DEIS.
That is not because of the leaving certificate and the Deputy knows that. That goes back much earlier-----
It compounds and crystallises it.
That is how privilege is locked in.
That concludes questions to An Taoiseach. Various Members are indicating that they may not have gone in on the appropriate list. I have a list before me and I can only work from that. The odd time I am not perfect but the list before me was as I took the speakers today.