Vol. 1027 No. 4
1. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach his views on the report on the transaction in relation to a company (details supplied) and the principles and policies within a corporation on interest rates published by his Department. [44838/22]
2. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach his views on the report on the transaction in relation to a company (details supplied) and the principles and policies within a corporation on interest rates published by his Department. [44840/22]
3. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the actions that he will take following the publication of the report of the IBRC Commission of Investigation. [45436/22]
4. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Taoiseach the actions that he will take following the publication of the report of the IBRC Commission of Investigation. [49725/22]
5. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of the IBRC Commission of Investigation. [49898/22]
I propose to take questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
My Department received the report of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, commission of investigation on the Siteserv transaction on 29 July 2022. I arranged for it to be published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 7 September 2022, following consultation with the Attorney General.
The commission's report is more than 1,500 pages long and goes through all aspects of the Siteserv transaction in an extraordinary level of detail as well as making extensive findings of fact. The report shines a light on unacceptable practices by certain parties during the course of the transaction and the Government noted its findings with considerable concern.
Among the many findings made by the commission in its report, it determined that it could be concluded that the Bank made its decision to approve the sale of Siteserv in good faith, but based on misleading and incomplete information provided to it by the company. The commission also determined that it can be concluded that the Siteserv transaction was, from the perspective of the bank, so tainted by impropriety and wrongdoing, that the transaction was not commercially sound.
The commission also found that the procedures and controls that were operated by IBRC at the relevant time relating to the Siteserv transaction were fit for purpose. It also found there is no evidence that any unusual trading in Siteserv shares occurred. The commission also established the approach taken by the IBRC concerning the setting of interest rates for individual loans and how those decisions were reached, and made no adverse findings.
The commission recommended that the report be brought to the attention of relevant authorities concerning a number of taxation, company law and bankruptcy issues. Accordingly, as per the commission's recommendations and on foot of advice from the Attorney General, I have brought the report to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners, the special liquidators of the IBRC, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the Central Bank and the official assignee in a bankruptcy case. These bodies are now responsible for conducting any appropriate investigations on foot of the report.
I note that the Taoiseach said in the past that the report was worthwhile. I agree insofar as it has shone a light on how things really work, how the business elite can take themselves off to a Swiss resort for a bootcamp and then not discuss what they really went away to discuss. Seven years later and having spent millions of euro of public money, we end up with a report that states that this was not a solid or sound transaction.
There are 37 additional transactions by IBRC with a net loss of more than €10 million each to the State. The question is: what will happen now? I do not believe that anyone would want to see another seven years per investigation with more millions of euro per investigation. The Taoiseach said he has referred this to the Revenue Commissioners, the Central Bank, etc. Is it not high time that the State found a process by which to investigate alleged inappropriate carry-on with corporate dealings or the potential of white-collar crime? Is the Garda not interested this? Is corporate enforcement not the first place we should be going to? Can the DPP look at it? Rather than spending years and millions of euro on investigations of something which obviously stinks, can we not go and use the system of justice that actually exists to investigate particularly the 37 additional transactions which should be investigated?
The findings of the IBRC Commission of Investigation report lift a veil on the reckless and elitist culture that infected certain echelons of Irish business and high finance during the Celtic tiger years. As we know, the commission is still preparing a report with its recommendations on the investigation of the other 37 transactions it has considered as part of its work.
Does the Taoiseach expect that the commission's report on these transactions will be submitted by the end of this month? How soon after that can we expect the Government to decide on the future of the commission itself, as it has also indicated there were insurmountable difficulties in progressing the investigation into these transactions. How does the Government intend to proceed? The total cost of the investigation has yet to be finalised, but we know it will be millions of euro. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to a more timely and less expensive mechanism by which such matters can be addressed? Given that the report as published has now been passed to the Revenue Commissioners, the special liquidators of the IBRC, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the Central Bank and the official assignee in the bankruptcy case for further investigations, obvious questions are being asked as to who, if anybody, is going to be held accountable for what has transpired.
It was indeed a very substantial document. On reading it, enormous detail is evident. What does the Taoiseach expect from the various entities to which he refers? Does he expect Revenue, the Corporate Enforcement Authority or the special liquidator of IBRC to come back to him? Is there a response? It would be obscene if those who got bonuses and who so tainted the process were permitted to keep them. Is that something the special liquidator is looking at in regard to IBRC?
There is also another aspect I wish to raise, namely, the leaked document from the official in Davy, who dealt with this case - Mr. Carville, now works as a senior official in the Department of Finance. Does the Taoiseach have a comment to make on that, because it does not seem to be something we can just gloss over?
Does the Corporate Enforcement Authority have the ability and staff to do the job? It was to be set up in January of this year and there were to be 16 gardaí, but there are still only seven gardaí assigned to it, although it deals with some very important cases and gardaí are required to be part of the process. Does the Taoiseach consider the authority to have sufficient staff to be able to handle the kind of work that is required to be done when issues such as this are referred to it?
During the debate on the IBRC commission report on Siteserv the Taoiseach indicated that the commission was due to submit a report before the end of October on the other 37 transactions. Could he update us on that?
As my colleague, Deputy Nash, pointed out during Dáil statements in September, there is a broader issue here where investigations under the Commissions of Investigations Act cannot serve a useful purpose if they cannot be completed within a reasonable timeframe and arrive at the truth in an effective and expeditious manner. Given that the evidence they gather is not admissible in similar criminal proceedings, they were supposed to be effective, efficient truth-finding mechanisms. Also, given how long the report has taken on just this one aspect, reading the report could be said to be like examining a long-buried time capsule with a story from long ago. If it is taking too long to get to the truth, and if we cannot use the commissions of investigation in an expeditious manner then we must ask if there is a case for a different sort of process to uncover or investigate the sort of issues the commission on Siteserv was set up to do. There is a genuine public concern about the length of time taken and the difficulty of getting to the truth through this mechanism, which we must recall was supposed to be an effective, efficient and expeditious version of the previous tribunals of inquiry mechanism. What is the preferred mechanism for such investigations in future?
Who is going to be held to account for what happened in the sale of Siteserv? Most people feel at this stage that this report is going to end up on a dusty shelf somewhere and that nothing is going to happen when it comes to the actions that were not taken in regard to the sale of Siteserv. There is a major frustration out there that this particular crisis was politically shelved by a long-term commission of inquiry so that the heat was taken out of it at a time where it was causing a major challenge to the Government of the day, and that now nobody is going to be held to account.
My view is that the case should be with the Garda. There needs to be a situation where people are held to account for the actions that they have taken. What happened in Siteserv was extraordinary. There was a write-down of €119 million, much of which came from the pockets of taxpayers and citizens. Siteserv gave €5 million to shareholders at the time of the write-down, which was extraordinary. Arthur Cox acted for the two sides of the same transaction, which was also extraordinary. The job was to maximise the number of bidders to get the most for the taxpayer from the sale, yet the commission of inquiry shows that is not what happened. The number of bidders was minimised.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta.
The key question is who will be held to account.
In the first instance, the commission of inquiry is in itself a form of holding people to account. The background in Ireland is that we have a written Constitution. People have legal rights and there is the presumption of innocence and so forth, which creates a legal context, which it seems to me makes all forms of inquiry very difficult. I make that general point. Deputy Bacik is more versed in the law than most here. That is a fundamental problem we have. Going back over the years, sometimes we have managed fairly quick investigations, some of them even non statutory: for example, the Ferns inquiry into abuse in the diocese of Ferns, which I initiated. A very good senior counsel at the time, now a judge, George Birmingham, got through it in months, to such an extent that it was ready for a statutory inquiry. It happened much more quickly also because the church co-operated 100% and the new bishop who came in handed over all the documentation. I remember other inquiries took an age - five and six years. The commission of investigation model was brought in to speed up the process in comparison to the inquiries under the original tribunals of inquiry Act, because they were going on too long. There is a fundamental issue that the Oireachtas must return to at some stage and on which it must consult in respect of whether there are effective means to have inquiries that can be short, concise and get to the point in terms of finding out what happened and what actions should follow.
In this case, there are very clear recommendations as to where it should go. We have sent the report to those bodies. I am not of the view that the report will gather dust on a shelf because what is in the report is quite substantial. I do not want to prejudice anything that might happen, but considerable clarity has been brought to a lot of issues, in particular regarding taxation, people not being kept informed and so on. That is a matter for the Corporate Enforcement Authority but also Revenue and so on. They will not necessarily be coming back to me. They will now deal with the individuals concerned.
To be fair, it was the Opposition, of which I was a member at the time, that sought this inquiry from the Government of the day. We cannot accuse the Government of the day of politically shelving it. All the leaders met - Deputy Catherine Murphy will remember that - in the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny's room. We then agreed to develop new legislation. This legislation is bespoke legislation, above and beyond the original commissions of investigation legislation because the judge had come back and said he needed additional powers as he faced potential legal challenges all along the way in respect of the progression of this report.
I believe we should go back to first principles. The existing investigatory and regulatory framework should be our first port of call in respect of investigating white-collar crime. I am speaking generally. My comments are not just in the context of Siteserv. The Garda must have stronger units. It is developing stronger teams in the area of fraud in conjunction with the Corporate Enforcement Authority. That needs to happen and is happening in terms of additional resources. Right across the board, all the various regulatory organisations should be far more proactive. What tends to happen is that the first port of call in the House is that we all just call for a commission. We are all guilty of that. It is the easiest thing to call for and to table a motion on. It can take seven years, which is too long. It is not satisfactory. This was previously examined by the Law Reform Commission in 2005. There was a report on public inquiries, including tribunals of inquiry.
It listed some advantages of a permanent inquiries office if we were to establish one. Over time, it stated, the staff would become experienced in investigations and would be paid salaries rather than a daily rate, resulting in savings. The office would have easy access to precedents and guidance on procedural issues and would provide a one-stop shop for those seeking information. However, it also listed disadvantages, stating:
Although a number of public inquiries may be in existence at present, there is no guarantee that there will be a need for similar bodies in the future ... [P]ublic inquiries ... are ad hoc bodies [by their nature] ... and their structure and personnel should reflect this.
Certain situations demand certain types of inquiries. Of course, I have no doubt that if there was a permanent office of inquiries, it would be inundated in a short time by this House. That is not to make any judgments but that would happen. Everyone would want to make inquires. We would be in a kind of a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, situation. I get the sense GSOC has hundreds of inquiries to go through and people do not seem to get satisfaction in terms of timely responses.
I am sorry for going on a bit there, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I was trying to get to the nub of what the Deputies were asking about.
6. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on environment and climate change will next meet. [44839/22]
7. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [48034/22]
8. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [48334/22]
9. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [48337/22]
10. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [48472/22]
11. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [49711/22]
12. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [49712/22]
13. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [49951/22]
14. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [50011/22]
15. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [50013/22]
16. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change will next meet. [50016/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 16, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change oversees the implementation of the ambitious programme for Government commitments in respect of the environment and climate change. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 sets out Ireland's key climate change commitments. It sets challenging carbon reduction targets for the period to 2030 and a statutory commitment to achieving a climate-neutral economy by 2050.
Following the approval of the carbon budget programme by the Houses of the Oireachtas in April, sectoral emission ceilings determining the upper limits of greenhouse gas emissions for all sectors have been agreed by the Government, save for the land use sector, which requires further analytical work to be undertaken over the coming 15 months. Agreed policies and measures designed to ensure sectors quickly and significantly reduce their emissions have been set out in the Climate Action Plan 2021. The plan will be further revised this year to ensure the actions it contains are sufficient to meet the reduction targets made explicit through the setting of the carbon budgets and sectoral emissions ceilings.
The next meeting of the Cabinet committee is scheduled to take place on Thursday, 27 October, and it will continue to meet regularly to progress all aspects of the Government's ambitious climate action and environmental policies.
In less than a month, COP27 will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. It is hard to believe it has been almost one year since Greta Thunberg famously described COP26 as "blah, blah, blah". I have just read an article by Naomi Klein describing COP27 as "blood, blood, blood", because it is taking place in one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world, in Egypt, where about 60,000 political prisoners face brutal torture daily by this oppressive regime. Many of them have been censored in silence from even writing letters to their families concerning the climate crisis. In one case of a famous political prisoner, a letter to his mother outlining his concerns about 30 million people being displaced in Pakistan by the recent floods was intercepted and censored.
Does the Taoiseach agree with Naomi Klein that this summit is going well beyond greenwashing a polluting state and is actually greenwashing a police state? When world leaders meet on Thursday, 27 October, will he raise this issue, along with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, and ensure the Irish State will give no succour or solace to the COP27 cover-up of this most brutal, oppressive and anti-environmental regime in that part of the world?
As the Taoiseach knows, solar is a renewable energy source that is quick to deploy, but it faces many of the same institutional barriers as wind. Changes in planning for rooftop panels on residential and other buildings will finally bring Ireland into line with the EU's solar rooftops initiative. However, issues remain for larger projects that are reliant on a decision by An Bord Pleanála. A solar project can take three months to construct but a year and a half to go through the planning process and even after all the delays, the Government has still managed to overpromise and underdeliver on microgeneration.
Is the Taoiseach aware households will not receive payments for the excess energy they generate until the end of this year at the earliest and are being offered as little as 14 cent per kilowatt-hour, which is ridiculous? It has been promised all schools will get solar panels. Will the full cost of those projects be covered for those schools or will it be just partial costs, as in the case of the microgeneration installation scheme the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications announced yesterday?
As the Taoiseach knows, we are in not only a climate emergency but also a biodiversity emergency, and often the latter is forgotten and neglected. That is particularly important when we think about our marine area and the protection of it. Not only is that sea an unparalleled store of biodiversity but it is also the most important carbon sink. If we destroy marine biodiversity or if we do not have a proper system for ensuring it is developed in a sustainable way, we will do double the damage to both biodiversity and the attempt to battle climate change.
Against that background, I strongly urge the Taoiseach to study the identifying areas of interest for marine protected area, MPA, designation produced by the Fair Seas group. It castigates the Government for the fact that only 2% of our areas have been designated whereas we need to have a minimum of 30%, and points out that many of the self-selected sites for offshore industrial wind are on sites that would destroy potential marine protected areas. Will he look into that and ensure our marine is not destroyed by profit-driven companies?
I ask that the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change take account of three matters, first the need for more transformational transport projects, such as the Labour Party's call for a €9 per month climate ticket for unlimited public transport journeys. We certainly welcome the plan to deliver 30 Pathfinder public transport projects, such as the phasing-out of cars from College Green in Dublin, but we need to see more radical policies introduced.
Second, I ask that the Government support my Dublin Bay Bill, which would transform the governance and oversight of the bay area of that wonderful natural amenity. I met the SOS Dublin Bay group earlier and I know there is a strong public view that we need to move on greater protection of the wonderful biodiversity habitat that is Dublin Bay.
Third, I raise the issue of energy security, specifically for those in apartments and complexes heated through a shared or district heating system. These people are being hit with extortionate price increases because the supplier is the purchaser of the fuel and is charged a commercial tariff. Tenants and homeowners have no choice of supplier in such complexes but are seeing price rises of nearly 600%, which is not sustainable. They need a gas price cap now. Will the Taoiseach urge the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to raise this at EU level, where there are ongoing discussions about a European-wide cap?
I bring to the Taoiseach’s attention a headline in my local newspaper, the Southern Star, that states, "Forget the climate for now says TD". The newspaper attributes that comment to a public representative in my constituency. This is in the context of people drowning in floods across the globe, dying in forest fires that are out of control, sea levels rising and thousands of young Irish people having taken to the streets calling on us for action, yet there are public representatives in the House, climate change deniers, who are saying, let us do nothing; forget about it.
I ask the Taoiseach to ramp up our climate actions, our offshore renewable energy and our retrofitting scheme so it is targeted at the people who need it most. I ask him to ramp up our renewable energy so we can silence these climate change deniers.
Dawn Meats was given permission by Meath County Council to install a 7.2 km pipeline that would pump treated effluent in the Boyne river, a special area of conservation. The pipeline would dispose of 400,000 l of wastewater into that historic river daily.
The Save the Boyne campaign was founded to protect against this. Its spokesperson, Peter Whelan, has stated that the river is the source of drinking water for 70,000 households, and it is also home to wildlife including otters, salmon and lampreys.
It is also the location of some the most important Neolithic monuments in Europe. Some 400 submission were made to the council. It has been given planning permission, however, and is now with An Bord Pleanála. This summer, especially, has seen exceptionally low water. I have lived by the River Boyne all my life and I have never seen the water this low. In parts of the River Boyne, there is no flow and no water at all. There is literally no water behind weirs and yet, this particular factory is going to be given a licence to put 400,000 l of wastewater into it. Will the Government come out against this particular project and make sure we protect our rivers for the wildlife and for people?
Thanks to a parliamentary question submitted by my colleague, Deputy Paul Murphy, we now know that data centres are to be included in the temporary business energy support scheme. Under the scheme, businesses can be compensated for increased electricity and gas bills up to a limit of €10,000 per month. The scheme is to be backdated to September and is expected to run until at least February of next year. There are currently approximately 70 data centres in this State. They are, in very significant measure, responsible for the energy grid crisis in this State and the threat of blackouts this winter. Yet, by my calculations, on the Government's scheme, 70 data centres at €10,000 for six months at a minimum means a potential subsidy of €4.2 million from this State to these companies. Can the Taoiseach tell me and the country that this is not so?
Carlinn Hall in Dundalk is one of these communal district heating systems with in or around 200 homes. The fact is that at the minute, the prices have risen. We are now talking approximately 42 cent per kWh. Frontline Energy provides heat. I have dealt with the Ministers and the Department. It looks like the long-term fix is the possibility of biomass or geothermal energy. We need to ensure we have the grant schemes that can deliver on that. While I would like to see a cap, I definitely think we have to facilitate making available electricity credits to these people. We should also possibly look at the idea of a business energy support scheme. Were Frontline able to avail of it once delivered, the savings could be passed on to those people who are obviously under incredible pressure. The long-term fix is already under way but we need a short-term fix to get people through what will be a brutal winter.
In response to Deputy Bríd Smith, there is a dilemma here. In the first instance, the response to climate change must be global. It has to involve all the states insofar as that is possible. That includes Egypt and many other states whose political systems or systems of governance are obviously not what we would be happy with. Through the European Union, we consistently raise issues of human rights in respect of what happens in Egypt and, indeed, other countries within the Middle East, as well as across Asia and Africa. I do not believe COP27 is about greenwashing a police state; I think it is a genuine attempt to follow COP26, which was far more effective than people would have anticipated given that a year or two earlier, President Trump, who did not agree with any of this, was in office. There was actually a degree of agreement between some of the major states at COP26. We need to continue to build on that. Each member state needs to play its role and part.
Has the Taoiseach no objection to the location of the conference, given the seriousness of this situation?
I did not decide on its location.
Can he not voice an objection as a leader?
It has been decided; I am not going to change that.
The Taoiseach can voice an objection.
The issue for us is whether we attend. That seems to be what the Deputy raised. We have to have a voice on the climate issue. We made significant contributions at COP26, as did the European Union. If anything, the European Union and United States led the charge on climate at COP26. Together with Japan and other countries, there is now potential that we can get better outcomes. I refer to Canada, in other words. There was a strong convergence of states but we need others. We need to convince others-----
We do not have to locate the Conference of the Parties in them.
-----and not just within Europe. We need to convert those outside of Europe as well and persuade them towards this agenda.
Deputy Cullinane raised the issue of solar panels. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, announced good moves recently around planning around schools and houses and so on. Basically, we want to make it as fast as we possibly can in terms of the planning process. The delivery of measures around climate and particularly solar is too long across the board. I will talk to the Minister in respect of what people are getting per kilowatt from the grid. We will follow up on that. Suffice to say, we want to get as much solar and renewable energy in place as we possibly can. It is my understanding that the full cost will be made available to schools as we roll out that particular programme.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the issue of our marine protected area. I met representatives from the Fair Seas campaign who attended our Ard-Fheis in respect of this issue. We need to have increased designation. The Deputy used the phrase "offshore industrial wind". I do not know what that means. Is he in favour of offshore wind or not?
It means that developers cannot select their own sites at the expense of the marine.
The point is that we will need offshore wind.
Developers should not select their own sites.
The European Commission made a call on this as well, by the way. It is looking at a planning instrument to say the overriding public interest demands that we provide offshore wind.
The developers are going to choose their own sites.
No. It is to track climate change. They are not-----
Here we go again with Fianna Fáil.
They are not choosing their own sites here.
They are; they have.
That is not what the Deputy said or what he was talking about.
The Government has designated the relevant project.
I assumed the Deputy was talking about the trade-off between how we designate marine protected areas and how we have offshore wind as well-----
That is exactly what I am talking about.
-----and that is the point. The point is that there will be trade-offs. There will have to be compromises because the overall good will be served by offshore wind if we take out fossil fuels. That is to the benefit of biodiversity. It is to the benefit of climate. We have to make a call and make the hard decisions-----
The Government is going to destroy biodiversity.
-----and hard decisions will have to be made about this. We cannot start one week attacking the fossil fuel and energy companies one week, however, and the next week start attacking industrial offshore wind. The bottom line of the Deputy's agenda is that anything to do with industry or anyone who is about investment is bad. That seems to be the Deputy's position.
Was the River Boyne in that response?
In terms of the-----
Here we go.
I would say that-----
Developers are on the loose again.
We are the first Government to bring in a national marine spatial framework and marine legislation and we had the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA. We want more marine designated areas.
We are moving on.
What about Carlinn Hall?
I have a good few responses left. Will I finish them?
The Acting Chairman could let him finish.
If I let him finish, the next group will not have time most of the previous Deputies had. The Standing Orders state there are 15 minutes for each grouping we have to go through.
It will take two or three minutes.
All the other Deputies will be pushed and will not get their answers. We will, therefore, move on to the next grouping.
I will just say that the Southern Star is a very august publication. However, if it is the case the headline read "Forget the climate for now", that is sounding the death knell for future and younger generations. That kind of approach is reprehensible and does not serve the young people of today.
17. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinetcommittee that deals with matters relating to justice will next meet. [44843/22]
18. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [48035/22]
19. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the high-level oversight board for the zero tolerance strategy to be jointly led by the Secretary General of his Department. [48470/22]
20. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee that deals with matters relating to justice will next meet. [49961/22]
21. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [49962/22]
22. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee that deals with matters relating to justice will next meet. [49964/22]
23. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [49965/22]
24. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [49967/22]
25. Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [49968/22]
26. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee that deals with matters relating to the arts and culture will next meet. [49969/22]
27. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the high-level oversight board for the zero-tolerance strategy to be jointly led by the Secretary General of his Department. [50012/22]
28. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on social affairs and equality will next meet. [50015/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 28, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality oversees implementation of programme for Government commitments in the areas of social policy including sport, equality, arts and culture as well as children and youth affairs, and public services including matters relating to justice, policing reform and community safety. The Cabinet committee last met on 16 May and will meet again in the coming weeks.
Recent public policy advancements in the area of social affairs includes publication of the third national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. The central aim of this strategy is to bring about zero tolerance towards domestic, sexual and gender-based violence in Irish society, as well as the attitudes and assumptions that underpin it.
Another important goal of the strategy is to improve the co-ordination and delivery of services for those affected by these forms of violence. In this regard, a new statutory domestic, sexual and bender-based violence agency with political oversight of the strategy will be established, situated within the Cabinet committee on social affairs and equality, which I chair.
In addition, a high-level oversight board, chaired by the Secretaries General to the Departments of the Taoiseach and Justice, will be established to ensure that actions are being implemented successfully and within the specified timelines. The high-level oversight board is expected to hold its first meeting in the near future.
In addition to meetings of the Cabinet committee, I have regular engagements with Ministers, both at Cabinet and individually, to discuss priority issues relating to their Departments.
A number of meetings have also been held between my officials and officials from relevant Departments on a range of social policy issues since the establishment of the Cabinet committee in July 2020. That would have involved a number of meetings with a number of partnership groups in different parts of the city, including Ballyfermot, Ballymun and the north-east inner city. I am anxious to try to develop a new policy framework to govern how we deal with communities that require significant multidisciplinary supports on a partnership basis into the future.
This Government and previous Governments have failed to grasp the winds of change in drug reform. When other states are changing course, I would argue that this State has stagnated in drug reform. In the past 20 years 10,000 people in this State have died of drug-related deaths, which is an incredible statistic. That is 500 people every year in the State. I would argue that if these people had different postal addresses and codes, the response from this Government and previous Governments would have been very different. We are in an unsustainable situation and the amount of resources that go into criminalising people for drug use does not work. Even US President Joe Biden made an announcement last week on reform in the US policy on cannabis use and so forth, and that is welcome, but in this State we criminalise people for using drugs. The majority of people in the prison population are there for drug offences. The resources that go into criminalising people simply do not work and we need to do something very different.
The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, announced last month that the Government had approved the domestic violence leave report. Recommendation 4 of that report states that employers should retain the right to request proof of abuse from a victim seeking leave. This recommendation reflects the disappointing and regressive position contained within IBEC's submission to the Department. Such a provision would be deeply inappropriate and totally unnecessary. When questioned at last week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Tánaiste stated that he did "not see how evidential proof could be a requirement of the legislation" and that such a provision would make the legislation effectively "unworkable". Does the Taoiseach agree with the Tánaiste on this and if so, will he give a commitment that there will be no requirement for proof of abuse included in this legislation?
I also ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the Government’s decision to cut in half the existing entitlement. The standard leave entitlement provided for in the public and private sector is ten days, as is the statutory provision in the North. When Fianna Fáil first committed to the introduction of this leave in 2018 it committed to ten days of leave. Reducing this to five days also goes against existing Government policy. Last year, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, wrote to all the universities to ask that they introduce ten days of paid leave for victims and survivors of domestic abuse and the main universities have since agreed to do so. Surely the Government wants to make progress rather than row back on existing provisions.
I had asked the Taoiseach about the high level oversight board for the zero tolerance strategy but I know he is appearing before the Joint Committee on Gender Equality, that I chair, tomorrow so we can address that further then. I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his engagement with our committee and for his engagement on the implementation of the 45 recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. I know all of us on the committee look forward to our engagement tomorrow with the Taoiseach.
I wish to raise a separate urgent matter regarding funding for Acquired Brain Injury Ireland, an organisation that provides vital supports to many survivors of brain injury. The current dormant accounts funding measures to support the employment of people with disabilities programme runs up to the end of 2022 but Acquired Brain Injury Ireland has received no formal update on what will happen to its service, particularly to the Step Ahead Plus programme, a specialist neuro service working nationwide with brain injury survivors in their return to work, education and training. Bodies like this need a commitment to multi-annual funding to ensure they can keep their highly skilled staff and crucially, to ensure brain injury survivors will retain access to vital services that enable them to return to work or access education. I am asking for a commitment that Acquired Brain Injury Ireland be guaranteed funding to continue to provide its vital service beyond the end of 2022.
Many if not most organisations advocating for people with disabilities were extremely disappointed with the budget. One of the demands they all rallied behind was that there should be a cost-of-disability premium to bring minimum payments for people with disabilities up to €350 per week, as we deemed appropriate during Covid, and that people with disability should get at least that in recognition of the huge costs of living with disability. I was at a briefing with Inclusion Ireland where some shocking facts were relayed on our lack of provision for people with disabilities. I was informed that 2,500 people are unnecessarily living in institutions and that 1,300 people below the age of 65 are living in nursing homes. I was also informed that many young people are still living with parents who are their carers. However for 1,500 of those people, their carers are over the age of 70 and for 400 of them their carers are over the age of 80, begging the question of who will care for these people when their parents pass on. I will name a few of the issues as follows. There is also a lack of therapeutic resources and supports in schools for young people with special needs. The Government has failed to seriously address all these things and to ratify the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Equality is a right for people with disabilities but the Government has not matched that with budgetary measures or with policy measures generally.
I would like to again raise with the Taoiseach the issue of early childhood care and education, ECCE-only providers. I commend the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O’Gorman, and the Government on their interventions up to now and for the record levels of investment by the State. That said, there is still an anomaly in ECCE-only providers. Fees remain frozen, which is a good thing for parents, but capitation fees also remain frozen. More and more ECCE providers are closing or are signalling that they intend to close in the coming months. The childcare providers are broadly supportive of the State’s investment in childcare, which I previously mentioned, but the anomaly of ECCE-only providers needs to be addressed urgently.
I met foster mothers in Carlow-Kilkenny yesterday and what I heard was worrying. Although these foster families do an incredible job on behalf of the State, I felt the State should do more for them. Foster care allowance has not increased since 2009 and if the same children were to be put into State care the weekly cost per child would be €6,000. I heard a foster parent was told to go out and get a job to pay for specialised equipment for a child with special needs and I also heard in their voices a fear that if they were to complain the child might be removed from them. Tusla tells us money is there but when these parents came looking for money for special food, beds or school assistance there was none. If they look for occupational therapists privately because the waiting lists are so long they are told to go and seek three quotes, even if this means hauling a child across county borders and many miles away. It is long past time that these children were made a priority.
I note that the plans for paid domestic violence leave are being strongly opposed by IBEC. IBEC has argued that employers should be allowed to ask for proof to stop any "potential abuse" of paid leave to victims of domestic violence. This position is disgraceful. Why is the Government supporting five days of leave instead of the ten days that was its previous position? The zero tolerance strategy measures are minimal when set against the epidemic of gender violence in our society. It is beyond belief that the Government is proposing that in five years' time, Ireland's refuge provision will still be below the Istanbul Convention targets. Some eight women are turned away from refuges every day in this State. On the basis of the proposals the Government has brought forward, in five years' time that number may be reduced to four.
When does zero tolerance not mean zero tolerance?
First, in regard to drug reform, Deputy Gino Kenny outlined the appalling death toll in Ireland from drug abuse. There are a number of approaches to dealing with this. I think part of the issue we have is that there tend to be stop-start initiatives. We need a continuous perseverance in communities in regard to drug traffickers and all of that, as well as in terms of giving young people supports in order that they can deal with the pressures they come under. We also need stronger supports in terms of facilities and services to help people come off a particular addiction. In addition, consideration is being given to decriminalising some offences. The Government is open to reform in regard to drug policy. We believe in a health-oriented approach as opposed to a criminal justice-oriented approach in respect of those who use drugs.
The situation in the country is very serious in terms of the impact of addiction generally on people and the degree to which it ruins people's lives. We are allocating fairly significant resources to the issue across health, justice and education. That needs to continue and persevere and I also think an area-based response can yield results as well. As I referenced earlier, we are anxious to develop the drugs task forces, which worked well in an earlier era. The issue is that some of them were discontinued when they should have been persevered with. These are facilities and frameworks that are put in place for the long haul, not the short haul, with the need for multidisciplinary teams working locally with schools, childcare providers, parents, homes and families and all the agencies working together. Where that happens, you can get good outcomes and results.
Deputy O'Reilly raised the broader issue of proof in respect of domestic violence leave. That is not Government policy and, quite frankly, it is not comprehensible how it could be put into legislation. There is no way the Government will be doing that. As I said in the Dáil some weeks ago, we have to approach these issues in a sensitive, helpful way for any person who comes forward to say, "I am a victim of domestic violence".
I agree 100%.
Let us help the person in need, not engage in cross-examination. That is my position and I am making it absolutely clear legislation will not see any provision of that kind.
It is very welcome to hear the Taoiseach say that. Will he comment on the leave entitlement of ten days?
I will come back on that. Again, this is breaking new ground, to be fair to the Minister. It is a very good start but we will revisit it.
Deputy Bacik raised the issue of funding for Acquired Brain Injury Ireland. I will look at that. It does fantastic work and I think it needs multi-annual funding. I have visited the organisation on many occasions. I believe it should also benefit from the cost-of-living package the Minister has announced for voluntary and community organisations. My understanding is the HSE provides some funding to it on a continuous basis but I will come back to the Deputy on that.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the issue of the cost of disability. We provided a once-off payment in the budget in terms of the cost of living but the wider issue is the need for a more sustainable multi-annual cost-of-disability premium.
Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan has been consistent in raising the point about the ECCE-only provision being a disadvantage to other childcare providers. It is a very fair point and I will pursue it with the Minister.
The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has engaged on the issue raised by Deputy Murnane O'Connor and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is open to further measures that might help. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, announced a once-off cost-of-living payment to foster parents from now until the end of the year but more needs to be done. I take the Deputy's point that there has been no increase since 2007.
We are over time, Taoiseach.
I have dealt with the issue raised by Deputy Barry in my answer to Deputy O'Reilly's point about the leave entitlement of five days versus ten days.
