Peadar Tóibín
Question:1. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach how much his Department has spent on public relations in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [32080/23]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Departmental Advertising
Mick Barry
Question:2. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach the amount spent on advertising with RTÉ by his Department in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [33643/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the amount spent on advertising with RTÉ by his Department in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [34008/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach the amount spent on advertising with RTÉ by his Department in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [34010/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach how much his Department has spent on public relations in each of the past ten years and to date in 2023. [34012/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
In the past ten years, the Department of the Taoiseach has incurred expenditure of €3.7 million on advertising with RTÉ. The bulk of this expenditure relates to Government Information Service, GIS, campaigns in 2020 and 2021. All expenditure is placed through a media buying company procured through an Office of Government Procurement framework. The role of the contracted media buying company is to ensure value for money and the most appropriate media are used to reach the maximum target groups.
The current media buying company has confirmed it has never used barter accounts for any Government business.
As set out in the table, most of the advertising placed with RTÉ was in the period since 2020 for the dissemination of information related to Covid-19. Public information campaigns played a vital role in communicating the various strands of the pandemic, including the supports made available by Government.
|
RTÉ Advertising Expenditure |
|
|
2013 |
Nil |
|
2014 |
Nil |
|
2015 |
Nil |
|
2016 |
Nil |
|
2017 |
Nil |
|
2018 |
€86,486 |
|
2019 |
Nil |
|
2020 |
€2,185,958 |
|
2021 |
€1,376,870 |
|
2022 |
€85,160 |
|
2023 |
Nil |
Advertising expenditure with RTÉ was nil for the years 2013 through 2017 and in 2019. In 2018, there was a spend of just over €86,000, while in 2020 it was just over €2.1 million. In 2021, it was €1.3 million. The spend fell to €85,000 last year and there has been no advertising spending with RTÉ this year.
The Department had no expenditure on departmental public relations in the past ten years, with the exception of public relations and communications services for the data summit held in June 2017 at a cost of €30,750. The citizens’ assemblies, which are staffed by the Department, have incurred expenditure of €275,293.40 since 2017 on public relations. Its remit includes raising public awareness of the assemblies' work and supporting communication and media outreach.
I do not have a problem with the Government spending money on genuine public service information with the national broadcaster. As an aside, there is a need, however, to address as a matter of urgency the more general issue of the impact of commercial and advertising on the controversies that have unfolded in RTÉ. It was notable, although not entirely credible, that Noel Kelly was, in essence, trying to excuse a lot of the goings-on over the pay stuff relating to the commercial relationship with RTÉ. That is a matter that has to be investigated and it links to the wider issue of the funding of RTÉ not being dependent on commercial and advertising, which can impact its public service remit.
This is the question I really want to ask, however. The State rightly spent money on Covid information during that period. I put it to the Taoiseach that, as I have stated at several forums, the biggest issue facing the country is the housing and homelessness crisis and the options and so on, or the lack of options in many cases, that are available to people for the different manifestations of that crisis. There should be a dedicated one-stop-shop portal to make clear to people who are facing homelessness, for example, what is available in terms of affordable, cost rental and other supports for when people are in a difficult situation. That would be a useful form of public or Government information statements to highlight what assistance, schemes and supports are available to people who find themselves in emergency or difficult situations as a result of the housing crisis. Very often, such people are desperate and do not have a clue where to go to look for assistance when they are in a dire situation.
One of the things that emerged from the committee hearings yesterday was the central and important role of Renault as a key commercial sponsor and partner for RTÉ. If one adds in all the other car companies, as well as the other fossil fuel companies, be they airlines or fossil fuel companies directly, that advertise with RTÉ, it must make up a large proportion of the advertising on RTÉ and across the media generally. Does that not now pose a question on the need to take action, as was taken in respect of tobacco, and ban fossil fuel advertising? These companies are not advertising for the sake of our health. The consequence of their advertising, which works and gets people to use more of these products, is bad for health. Close to 9 million people every year die from air pollution linked to fossil fuels. That is more people than die from tobacco-related disease yearly. Most significant is the impact of this in the context of the future of the planet. In recent weeks, several records have been broken in terms of the hottest day on record. We are facing the symptoms of ecological collapse and can see them all around us. That is being driven by these fossil fuel companies. Is it not time to ban fossil fuel advertising? I and my colleagues are today submitting a Bill to the Bills Office to do precisely that. I invite the Taoiseach to think about it. I hope he will support the Bill when it comes up for debate.
Obviously, we are asking questions on what his Department is spending on advertising with RTÉ. There are wider questions for RTÉ but, on some level, that has been done to death, without getting hold of the answers we require in the context of providing the new trust that we hope to find. All present know the importance of public sector broadcasting, however. Are there plans to deal with the issue relating to certain processed foods and all the rest? A holistic approach is needed. The sugar tax and so on were introduced but this issue relates particularly to younger people and obesity. A cross-departmental and multi-agency approach is needed to come up with something that will work. The health of citizens is in question.
On the points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett, we spend money on public information campaigns around housing and homelessness and are going to spend more on them. There are a lot of Government schemes available to help people with housing but people are not always aware of them. It will not be done through my Department but, rather, is being done through the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. There is information relating to the help-to-buy scheme, for example, to make people aware they can claim back three years of income tax to help them towards a deposit. There has been and will be advertising in around the first home scheme, which helps people to bridge the gap between the mortgage they can get and the property they want to buy, and around the local authority home loans to help people get a loan if they cannot get a mortgage from the bank. There is a public relations campaign planned around the Croí Cónaithe grants to encourage people to take up those grants to renovate old residential buildings and bring them back into use. Of course, there is the tenant in situ scheme, housing assistance payment and other options, as well as cost rental. The basic point that there are a lot of different schemes and options but people may not be aware of them as they might be is accepted. We want to send information on that.
Could that include people who do not tick those boxes but need help and a place to go? There are people who do not fit into these categories. I welcome the proposal but-----
I am sure we can. Certainly in my constituency service, we try to help people directly-----
So do I.
-----but where we cannot do so, we often advocate going to the local authority or a body such as Threshold. That can be very helpful to people in terms of giving them the advice they need. We can certainly take that into consideration.
As regards Renault, we do not have any plans to ban fossil fuel advertising. We will certainly consider any Private Members' legislation that comes before Cabinet. We always do so. At the moment, there are many people who do not have a choice other than to use fossil fuels because they have an oil burner or gas heating or cannot yet afford an electric vehicle. There are many people who do not have much choice other than to use fossil fuels. It could be argued that advertising at least gives them information on what options are available and what price offers might be available. It does not necessarily encourage them to use more fossil fuel but that is often the argument made for and against advertising bans, as the Deputy well knows. As regards car manufacturers, they produce electric vehicles as well. We are seeing a big take-off in the number of new electric vehicles being bought and that is very encouraging. I appreciate that electric vehicles are powered by electricity which is half produced by fossil fuels but, again, that is changing over time and I think we will reach the target of 80% renewables or better by 2030.
I missed part of Deputy Ó Murchú's question.
It relates to advertising, although that is only part of it.
It is looking at how we advertise processed foods, and whatever else. A sugar tax was introduced and I know that will be reviewed but it is as part of the holistic nature of dealing with childhood obesity in particular. I was probably clearer when I said it the first time.
I do not know as much about this as I used to know when I was the Minister for Health. There are existing restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy foods, for the want of a better term. I acknowledge that not all processed foods are unhealthy, as the Deputy does, but there are rules around advertising at certain times and it being targeted to children. I am not up to date on what those rules are but I will certainly take it into consideration.
European Council
Bernard Durkan
Question:6. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on this attendance at the recent European Council meeting. [32445/23]
Seán Haughey
Question:7. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the European Council on 29 and 30 June 2023. [33185/23]
Mick Barry
Question:8. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Council meeting. [33641/23]
Neasa Hourigan
Question:9. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the European Council meeting. [33682/23]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:10. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on this attendance at the recent European Council meeting. [33722/23]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Question:11. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the recent European Council meeting. [33968/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:12. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the European Council on 29 and 30 June 2023. [34009/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:13. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the European Council on 29 and 30 June 2023. [34011/23]
Gino Kenny
Question:14. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the European Council on 29 and 30 June 2023. [34013/23]
Bríd Smith
Question:15. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach for a report on his attendance at the European Council on 29 and 30 June 2023. [34014/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 15, inclusive, together.
I attended the meeting of the European Council on 29 and 30 June in Brussels and I will report to the House in detail on the meeting later this afternoon. We discussed Ukraine, economic issues, security and defence, migration, and external relations, including with China. The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke via video conference, updating us on the situation on the ground, including following the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam. We reaffirmed our enduring solidarity with Ukraine, acknowledged Ukraine’s commitment to EU accession, and discussed future security commitments to Ukraine recognising that they must be in full respect of security and defence policies of all member states, including Ireland. Leaders welcomed progress on the establishment of a tribunal to ensure Russian accountability; took stock of work exploring the use of immobilised Russian assets; welcomed the adoption of the 11th sanctions package; and reviewed efforts to further weaken Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Leaders discussed the current economic situation, including economic security issues, and Europe’s long-term competitiveness. We called for an independent report on the future development of the Single Market to be published by 2024. On migration, leaders were unified in their sorrow at the loss of life in the Mediterranean in June. We discussed the need to step up efforts to prevent irregular departures and loss of life, to strengthen borders, and in the fight against smugglers.
On security and defence, we considered progress on the strategic compass, and welcomed the decision to increase the ceiling of the European Peace Facility and to maintain the Union’s ability to respond to crises and conflicts. Ahead of our meeting, we met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and discussed EU-NATO co-operation.
We had a strategic discussion on relations with China. A stable relationship with China is important, including given the role it needs to play on global challenges such as climate change. At the same time, we need to consider dependencies in our supply chains in circumstances where they could pose unacceptable economic risks. We reiterated the EU’s commitment to human rights and expressed concerns regarding Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.
During our meeting, we also discussed the development of a comprehensive partnership package with Tunisia; reiterated our commitment to the EU perspective of the western Balkans; and condemned the recent violent incidents in the north of Kosovo and called for a de-escalation of the situation. We reaffirmed our commitment to finding a settlement to the situation in Cyprus and called for a resumption of negotiations. We also discussed preparations for the EU-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the EU-CELAC summit, which I will attend in Brussels next week.
I thank the Taoiseach. A wide range of issues were obviously discussed at the European Council meeting, including the major global challenge of migration. As we know, an agreement was reached by the justice ministers on 8 June in respect of the central elements of the asylum and migration pact, using qualified majority voting. The aim of this agreement is to put in place a common procedure for the processing of applications for international protection, to establish mandatory border procedures, and to adopt a flexible solidarity mechanism. We are told that Hungary and Poland raised their opposition to the new plan at the European Council meeting, or certainly raised concerns about it. I ask the Taoiseach whether he thinks this new agreement regarding migration will work. Can he confirm that Ireland will continue to advocate for a humanitarian response to the ongoing and unfolding tragedies in the Mediterranean? Does he agree that central to any solution should be a crackdown on the criminal gangs involved in human trafficking? Finally, is it now not clear that we must substantially increase legal pathways for migrants trying to make a new life in the EU?
I back what Deputy Haughey said in the sense that we need to look at the whole issue of migration holistically. We all know that across Europe, but particularly here, of the huge gaps we have regarding employees so we need to rectify that across the board. I would be interested how the Taoiseach thinks the conversations went with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regarding NATO co-operation, given this State's position of non-alignment and military neutrality. The Taoiseach mentioned what has happened in Kosovo. We know of the conversation regarding accession for the western Balkans and that they need to be provided with a route map, while people within that context have to be able to see right by the Copenhagen criteria. Were there talks of any plans about engagement? Was there any conversation on Cyprus, beyond reiterating that the situation of partition and occupation from the Cypriot point of view needs to be dealt with, as well as on how can we move it on?
Nuclear weapons are probably the most monstrous invention of humanity. Coming fairly close behind them are cluster munitions. As the Taoiseach knows, this country was the locale and one of the major promoters of the Convention on Cluster Munitions to ban them, with more than 100 countries signing up to it. Then this weekend we had the spectacle of US President Joe Biden talking about the "very difficult decision" to give Ukraine cluster munitions, which spread explosives over wide areas and leave things on the ground that explode. They are picked up by children and blow kids' arms and legs off and so on. They are a disgusting vile weapon that this country has been part of calling for a ban on. They are, of course, used by Russia, disgustingly, but now it seems the United States and Ukraine think it is okay to use these disgusting, vile, immoral weapons.
The Taoiseach talked about the strategic compass. Where is the moral compass in the European Union to say this is absolutely outrageous that anybody would consider using these disgusting, horrific, barbaric weapons and that our so-called allies in the United States or in Ukraine would consider using these things? I hope the Taoiseach will speak out and say a little bit more than that he is concerned about the use of these weapons. They are vile and we should speak out in the loudest terms against their deployment by anybody, but particularly by people who we regularly talk about as being allies.
I want to raise the issue of international parental abduction and ask whether this topic came up at any of the meetings and discussions. This is a situation where one parent takes children out of the State, Ireland, but it could be any state, into another country and they are effectively kept there are not returned to their parent. Obviously, it is a horrendous situation for the parent and the family involved, the fact they are separated from the children. The Taoiseach might know of one case I am aware of currently. It involves a woman called Mandy who is the mother. She wrote to the Tánaiste and I have a copy of her email, stating:
I have not seen my children in over 400 days. I need further reassurance that the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish Consulate in Cairo are serious regarding my Irish born sons' wellbeing and their right to be home. I wake up to a nightmare every single day not knowing if my children are alive or well.
Her ex-husband has gone back to Egypt and is effectively refusing to allow the children to come back. I understand she is in touch with the consulate and the Department. My question is a general one about discussions on this subject at international level, because what is happening is not just happening in Ireland, but also about how we can ensure all possible assistance is being given to Mandy and her family.
On migration, the discussion we had at the June European Council was a follow-on from the detailed conclusions agreed by the Council in February, and much progress has been made since then. We could not agree on conclusions at the most recent meeting in Brussels because of the objections of Poland and Hungary. Sometimes it is better to have no conclusions than a formula of wording to which everybody can agree but does not mean very much. Nonetheless, President Michel felt it was important for us to discuss the issue again.
Tragic events, including the recent shipwreck off the coast of Greece that resulted in the loss of many lives, continue to highlight the urgent need to deal with migration in a comprehensive and holistic manner. Ireland will continue to work with its EU partners to ensure humanitarian and international legal obligations are upheld. The protection of life and safety at sea remains paramount, irrespective of the circumstances that lead to people being in a situation of distress.
In the round, migration is a good thing for our country, but it does need to be properly managed. On 8 June and 9 June, justice and home affairs ministers reached a political agreement on the asylum procedure regulation and the asylum and migration management regulation, two important elements of the proposed pact on asylum and migration. Once adopted by the EU co-legislators, this will establish a common procedure for processing international protection requests, mandatory border procedures and a new flexible solidarity mechanism. In answer to Deputy Haughey's question, I do not believe it will work on its own but it can help.
It is clear we need a comprehensive approach that deals with all aspects of the challenge. That includes strengthening the EU's external borders, solidarity within the EU and working closely with countries of origin and transit. I certainly agree with Deputy Haughey that we need a zero-tolerance approach to those who engage in people smuggling and human trafficking. They put people in vessels that are often not seaworthy and do not care whether they reach the other side alive; they just want their money. We need to break up those rackets in any way we can. I will leave it at that.
I agree we need legal pathways to migration but I point out we have many legal pathways to migration in Ireland. Any citizen of the UK, EU or European Economic Area can come to Ireland to work, study and live. That amounts to nearly 500 million people. We have an effective work permit system and issue about 40,000 work permits every year to people with skills we need who want to come here. In addition, there are student visas, family visas and so on. Ireland is actually a very good example of a country that has many legal pathways to migration. I do not believe the asylum process or international protection system should be used by anyone other than people who need international protection because they are fleeing war or persecution. It should not be used as a means of economic migration.
With regard to Deputy Ó Murchú's question on Cyprus, there was a mention of the matter in the EU conclusions. The new President of Cyprus gave us an update on the situation. I had a chance to meet the Speaker of the Cypriot Assembly, who is effectively the Vice President. She visited Ireland recently and I met her in Brussels also. There is hope on the Greek Cypriot side that talks can resume again, but it is unfortunate that previous attempts to agree on unification have not been possible.
I understand cluster munitions are being used by both Ukraine and Russia in the war. That is absolutely wrong. Ireland as a country has been a leader on this issue. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, took a particular interest in the matter during his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Ireland is one of the countries that has signed up to the convention banning cluster munitions. They are terrible weapons and they inflict an inordinate amount of harm on civilians. They can be left around for years and cause injuries similar to those caused by landmines. They are really awful weapons. We totally disagree with the United States' decision to provide cluster munitions to Ukraine. I have said that publicly already and want to put it on the record of the House. We will say this directly to the US authorities when the opportunity arises. Our colleagues in the UK and the European Union take the same view. I hope the war ends soon but what is certain is that there will be people injured by the weapons long after the war has ended, as we saw in Vietnam, Bosnia and other places. I have seen demining operations in Colombia. It is a profoundly wrong decision to provide those weapons.
International parental abduction has not been discussed at the European Council, at least not to my recollection and not recently, but I am aware of individual cases involving people who live in my constituency and others who have raised the issue with me. We all encounter such cases as politicians. I remember the stellar work of former MEP Mary Banotti, who took a particular interest in the issue. The Department of Foreign Affairs helps wherever it can. Sometimes it can be hard to help in a meaningful or practical way because laws can be very different in other countries, but the Department is available to help people in any way it can.
Constitutional Amendments
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:16. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [32201/23]
Cian O'Callaghan
Question:17. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [34035/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:18. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [34015/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:19. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plan for constitutional amendments. [34018/23]
Mick Barry
Question:20. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his plans for constitutional amendments. [34045/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, together.
As I announced in March, the Government intends to hold a referendum in November this year on gender equality, as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality and the special Oireachtas Joint Committee on Gender Quality. The decision to hold one or more referendums on this issue is in line with the commitment in the programme for Government to respond to the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. An interdepartmental group, led by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, was established in March and is working on the development of policy recommendations for consideration by the Government and wording for the proposed referendums. There are various other proposals for further constitutional reforms under consideration. However, no final decisions have been made as yet on the timing for the holding of other referendums in respect of them.
Some of these proposed reforms arise from the programme for Government, such as those on housing and extending the franchise in presidential elections to Irish citizens living outside the State, while others, such as that on the EU agreement on the Unified Patent Court, arise from existing legal requirements. The establishment of the Electoral Commission will help to streamline the conduct of referendums and provide independent oversight.
The current programme for Government commits to holding a referendum to extend the franchise in presidential elections to Irish citizens living outside the State. This was raised previously by me and others, and the Taoiseach stated the work is ongoing on presidential voting rights and that reports had been completed. Will he spell out exactly what work has been undertaken by the Government over the past three years on this matter? What are the reports?
I understand significant work is involved in preparing for the practicalities of voting rights, but as things stand and looking from the outside, it looks like no progress has been made in providing for the referendum itself. The Taoiseach has emphasised his support for extending rights to Irish citizens living outside the State. He was very much in favour of these rights during his first term as Taoiseach. On that basis, surely the 2019 Bill restored after the last election should have been moved on by now and the heads of the electoral (amendment) Bill should have been published.
What engagement has the Taoiseach or the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, had with the Electoral Commission on dealing with those in the North or the creation of an international electoral register for Irish citizens and passport holders abroad? What other logistical and practical preparations are under way? Does the Taoiseach still intend to hold a referendum concurrent with the next general election, as suggested earlier this year?
A date needs to be set for the referendums on water and housing. The Government is running out of time.
In the context of a constitutional amendment on the rights of people with disabilities, I raise a specific issue relating to respite services in community healthcare organisation, CHO, 9, which covers north Dublin. Yesterday, I attended a meeting organised by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, on day services for school leavers in my constituency. One of the issues that came up at the meeting, which is raised with me all the time, concerns the level of respite services available on the northside of Dublin. As the Taoiseach knows, respite services are critical supports for people with disabilities and their families. They are absolutely vital. Data given to me by the HSE show the level of respite services in CHO 9 is approximately 25% less than in other CHO areas, including CHOs 6 and 7. A small increase in funding for respite services in CHO 9, covering Dublin's northside, would fix this. Will the Government provide the funding that is needed to ensure people with disabilities and their families on the northside of Dublin have access to the same level of respite services as are available in other areas?
I, too, want to press the Taoiseach on dates for the referendums on keeping water services and infrastructure in public ownership and on housing, both of which have been promised by the Government. The Government keeps echoing the mantra that housing is its biggest priority. The most severe social crisis facing the country, which it certainly is, is that hundreds of thousands of people, in one way or another, are impacted by this absolutely devastating housing crisis, whether that be by unaffordable house prices, mortgage interest hikes, the lack of public and affordable housing, the lack of rights for tenants or, worst of all, families, children and individuals being driven into and trapped in homelessness. Side by side with those issues, there are huge numbers of empty properties and extortionate rents are being charged that ordinary people cannot afford.
Before the Taoiseach says it, we know a referendum will not change all of that. However, time and again, the Government has cited the Constitution and legal concerns when saying why it cannot do certain things, such as dealing with vacant properties, controlling rents and a number of actions people have proposed that could help to address the crisis. Those legal obstacles need to be removed by making things clear and putting the right to housing into the Constitution. Is the Taoiseach going to do that before there is a general election, as he promised?
Arising from the programme for Government, there are commitments to hold constitutional referendums on the following matters: extending the franchise of presidential elections to Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and overseas; housing; and Article 41.2 of the Constitution, that is, the referendum on the role of women in the home and gender equality. Consideration is also being given to other possible referendums. In June 2022, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to participate in the unitary patent system and to hold the necessary constitutional referendum to enable Ireland to do so. We are considering holding that referendum concurrent with the local and European elections next year. Under the programme for Government, the issue of the environment, including water and its place in the Constitution, is to be referred to a relevant Oireachtas joint committee for consideration. An amendment to the Constitution to provide for non-religious declarations as an optional alternative may be considered in response to the UN Human Rights Committee recommendations. Other possible referendums for consideration include amendments to the permitted number of Cabinet Ministers under certain circumstances, such as maternity leave, and, in the longer term and in light of the rising population, reforming Article 16.2 to cap the number of Members of Dáil Éireann.
The programme for Government includes a commitment to hold a referendum on the extension of the franchise for presidential elections to Irish citizens living outside the State. This is something I have strongly supported and continue to do so. In light of that commitment, the Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Presidential Elections) Bill 2019 was placed on the Dáil Order Paper by the Government in July 2020. The timing of the referendum is yet to be finalised. There is considerable complexity involved, both in registering people to vote in Northern Ireland and overseas and in organising elections in other jurisdictions. However, it is something we should do and we are minded to do it concurrent with the next presidential election in 2025.
Deputy O'Callaghan asked about funding of respite services. There has been a considerable increase in such funding in recent years, with new respite centres opened in almost all community healthcare areas. However, we are running into real difficulty in finding people to staff those centres, given we are now beyond full employment. I am not fully aware of the details of the specific service in north Dublin to which the Deputy referred. If he passes the details on to me, I will bring them to the attention of the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and we will see what can be done. Generally, the real struggle in providing respite services in the past year or so has been in finding staff, not finding the money to pay them.
Regarding the referendum on housing, we are awaiting a proposed wording from the Housing Commission. I understand the commission is still deliberating on that. When we have the wording, the next step is to consider it. As is always the case with the Constitution, we have to be careful what we put into it. Once something is in the Constitution, it is the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, that determine what it means, not those of us elected to serve in this House or in the Seanad. It is important to get the wording right. I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that it will not in itself solve the housing crisis, but it could help if it tips the balance in favour of building more homes. For my part, any amendment to the Constitution on housing that does not make it easier to build more homes would not really be one worth supporting. There is no point in giving people the right to take legal action to get compensation if we are not providing a legal right that makes them more likely to get a house. I would like to see wording that actually makes it easier to build more homes in this country. An amendment on those lines would be very helpful.
In the past, the whole idea of property rights being a constitutional barrier to our doing what we want to do has been overstated. First, properties do not have rights; people who own property have rights. However, those rights have always been limited by the common good and they did not prevent us from bringing in things like zoning laws, compulsory purchase orders, property taxes, derelict site levies and rent pressure zones. All of those things have been done and they have not been struck down on constitutional grounds. The idea that the important property rights that exist in the Constitution prevent us from doing things has been overstated in the past.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.