I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.
Adjournment Matters
Departmental Schemes
I, too, welcome the Minister, although I understood the Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was to take this matter. I want to make it clear that the issues I am raising predate his appointment as Minister, but obviously he has inherited the problem.
I want to discuss the findings of departmental officials with regard to the forage area of commonage lands in Keelderry, County Galway, which are similar to thousands of hectares of land from County Donegal to County Kerry. The land in question is located in a special area of conservation for birds and being farmed in compliance with the commonage framework plan, the REPS and National Parks and Wildlife Service guidelines.
An inspection involving an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and a supervisor took place on 14 October 2010. In his report dated 15 October 2010 the officer states he found no forage and the supervisor agreed with his conclusion. This was in spite of the fact that the same officer had granted a forage figure of over 90% on similar land nearby. A point to note about this area is that the adjoining commonages all have a forage reference area in excess of 95%, and this land is no different. The last line of the official's report states he concurs with the findings of two colleagues who did not write their reports until one week later, 21 and 22 October 2010. The Minister will agree this is impossible and evidence of a conspiracy and a vendetta by departmental staff.
In the reports it is acknowledged that there were horses grazing on the land, yet the forage area was given as nil. The question then arises as to what the horses were grazing on. In February 2011 an area superintendent reinspected the land and allowed a forage area of 10%. There are no varying degrees of agricultural activity in the terms and conditions of the scheme concerned and it is incredible that they could not understand this at the time. It was only in July 2011 that staff in the Galway office discovered this and, as a result, all staff were called to a meeting to clarify the position. In a mix-up of geographical work areas, two other officers who were on a temporary transfer from another section were instructed by their supervisor to carry out an inspection on the same lands. The results were dramatically different. All independent advice clearly confirms that these officers carried out their inspections as per the 2010 commonage inspection guidelines and their findings are correct.
I understand that following a freedom of information request in May 2011 two senior officials visited the place of work of these two officers. The purpose of the visit was to coerce them into agreeing that they had carried out an unauthorised inspection in order that their file would not be released in response to the FOI request. This they refused to do. I compliment them on their integrity and honour in taking this action.
The Department persisted in withholding this part of the file, although it was subsequently released after the intervention of the Ombudsman. As the Minister is aware, this is a criminal offence and I call on him to have the matter investigated. I understand that when the issue was raised with him by Deputy Noel Coonan, he ordered an investigation. However, one member of the investigation team is the same area superintendent who has already made a decision in this matter and is desperately trying to uphold it, even though it totally contradicts the terms and conditions of the scheme. I put it to the Minister that, in breach of fair procedures, natural and constitutional justice, the Department failed to perform an independent investigation by allowing an area superintendent — as well as staff from his own section within the Department — to investigate his own work, thereby depriving the applicants and the staff who were on a temporary transfer to his section of a fair and reasonable investigation. The only parties who have been subject to investigation are the officers who carried out an authorised inspection and produced an accurate report.
This raises the question of how staff members who are unable to recognise forage land, who acknowledge that stock are grazing on the land, yet confirm the forage area to be nil, can justifiably continue to carry out work of this nature, given their clear inability to understand the meaning of the terms and conditions of the scheme. In a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the core issue of forage availability, the investigation has been extended to the grants paid to the farmers concerned for buildings and under the REPS and other schemes in the past ten years. These actions and omissions by the Department's staff represent an abuse of power, harassment, intimidation, bullying and deliberate embarrassment of legitimate applicants and members of its own staff. A number of the landowners have never received any communication from the Department, while others received no replies to letters of query. An appeal was lodged with the independent appeals office in July 2011 but has met with frustration, delay and unjust impediment, the result of which is that the appeal has not been heard in an expedient manner, as the applicants are entitled to. I put it to the Minister that the reason for this behaviour on the part of his Department is to prevent the appeal from being heard, which results, again, in a deprivation of natural justice for those concerned.
At this late stage I emphasise the urgency and importance of rectifying the behaviour of the Department which amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice by its staff. In the light of this, I urge the Minister to take immediate action to rectify this unconscionable behaviour by members of his Department in manipulating the appeals process to prevent dignity, integrity and justice from reaching the applicants. Many farmers have lost huge amounts of money as a result of this action. I ask the Minister to have the matter investigated and brought to a satisfactory conclusion as a matter of urgency.
I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, who apologises for his inability to attend.
As the House is aware, the Agriculture Appeals Office is an independent agency established to provide an appeals service for farmers who are unhappy with decisions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding their entitlements under certain schemes. The Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, with the Agriculture Appeals Regulations 2002, sets down the functions of the director and the appeals officers, the decisions that may be appealed and the procedures that must be followed in respect of agriculture appeals. The Agriculture Appeals Act is specific in outlining the powers conferred on the appeals office and its officers. Specifically, appeals officers are independent in the performance of their functions; they are not confined to the grounds on which the original decision was made, rather they decide as though the matter was being decided for the first time; oral hearings which are held where the appellant so chooses are in private, with the appellant being free to be accompanied by whomever he or she wishes, be it a family member, farm body representative, legal representative or someone else; appeals officers are authorised to administer oaths and take evidence under oath; and decisions of appeals officers are binding on the Department.
The aim of the appeals office is to provide an independent, accessible, fair and timely service for scheme applicants and deliver that service in a courteous and efficient manner. This is the manner in which the appeals office has worked in practice. The Department's officials have ongoing regular contact with the appeals office in matters relating to a wide variety of schemes operated by the Department. This allows the process to run smoothly from the point of view of the Department, the appeals office and the appellants. Since the establishment of the office, the number of cases processed has run into the thousands and, in all the interlinked dealings necessitated by these cases, at no stage was the independence of the office called into question. Both parties take their legal responsibilities in the consideration and processing of appeals with the appropriate regard expected under the regulations.
It is understood the Senator may have raised this matter with reference to a specific ongoing case. I can inform the House that the case in question was initially the subject of an informal internal investigation within the Department, but it is now subject to a formal investigation. Therefore, while this formal investigation is ongoing, it is not appropriate that any appeal on the matter under investigation be considered by the appeals office. This does not in any way interfere with the ability of those concerned to pursue their case with the appeals office on the conclusion of the formal investigation, should they so choose to do so at that stage.
Some of the issues I have raised are certainly worthy of investigation. I urge that this matter be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Household Charge
I thank the Minister for coming to the House this evening to respond to my contribution on the household charge. Following the decision to introduce this tax, there is great maturity and acceptance among the majority of the Irish that the country and local government must be funded. While no one wishes to pay taxes, there is significant and substantial take-up of this tax.
I have a few queries regarding the operation of the scheme. It is important that we try to clarify any anomalies that might emerge and ensure people know exactly who is and is not obliged to pay the tax. Will the Minister clarify the position with apartments and bedsit units, particularly single bedsit units in a house? My understanding is that if separate kitchen facilities are provided, the charge is applicable but if there is some type of central cooking or dining area, it might be different. I would be obliged if the Minister would clarify the position in that regard.
Second, will the Minister clarify the position concerning the non-principal private residence or second home charge? I have received a number of queries from people who claim they are unable to get a precise and immediate response from the Department. Will the Minister confirm that people who are eligible to pay the €100 household charge must pay not only that charge but also the tax on the second property, if they have such a property?
I believe people are now buying into the household charge, not because they wish to but because they know they must. I have come across a number of cases where people realise that an older or disused house should have previously been subject to the non-principal private residence tax of €200 per year. They are now worried that they should have paid the €200 per annum two or three years ago. I understand there is a €20 per month levy or fine for not doing so and they are worried about coming forward. Is there any possibility that the Minister could make some arrangement to encourage those people to regularise their affairs? Of course we cannot mention the word "amnesty" any longer, but perhaps some arrangement could be made to assist those people.
A former era.
The word is from a former era. It will be an arrangement rather than an amnesty.
My colleague, Senator Walsh, when he realised this matter was being raised, brought it to my attention that we might get some clarification on the issue of people who are currently residing in Britain, for example, but who own a house in Ireland which is let to tenants. Do they pay both the household charge and the non-principal private residence charge? They are not living in Ireland, so it is not their second Irish property. What are their obligations?
That covers the questions I wished to ask. I welcome the fact that this scheme is up and running and that there is a mature and positive response from the public. However, if we tie up the loose ends and remove the doubts, it will be easier for everyone.
I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to clarify the issues he raised. The EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland commits the Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. The programme reflects the need, in the context of the State's overall financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the cost of providing services with the demand for such services.
In order to meet the requirements in the EU-IMF programme, the Government has introduced the €100 household charge in 2012. The charge is an interim measure and proposals for a full property tax will be considered by the Government in due course. The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the legislative basis for the household charge. The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, and associated regulations provide the legislative basis for the charge on non-principal private residences. Under the legislation, owners of residential property are liable to pay the household charge, including those persons with a liability to pay the charge on non-principal private residences by the due dates, unless otherwise exempt.
Both the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, contain the same definition of residential property. Sections 2 of both Acts provide that the residential property means a building that is situated in the State and that is occupied, or suitable for occupation, as a separate dwelling, whether the occupier shares, or would be entitled to share in connection therewith any accommodation, amenity or facility with any other person, and includes a house, maisonette, flat or apartment, including the form of accommodation commonly known as a bedsit.
The charge on non-principal private residences and the household charge are payable on each unit of accommodation that is occupied, or suitable for occupation, as a separate dwelling. Thus, the owner of a building which is divided into a number of flats or bedsits is liable for the charge on non-principal private residences and the household charge on each such unit in that building. The household charge and the charge on non-principal private residences are on a self-assessment basis and it is a matter for an owner of a residential property with a liability to either or both charges to declare that liability and to pay the relevant charges by the due dates.
The income from the household charge and from the charge on non-principal private residences is used to pay for essential local services. I am conscious that people, genuinely and through no fault of their own, might have deemed themselves not to be liable for the second home charge. I will introduce new arrangements whereby I will be in a position to stem the penalties that have applied since then and allow them to enter into an instalment arrangement with the local authority in order that they can discharge their liability. This will ease the financial pressure of having to pay a lump sum to deal with their compliance with the law in this area.
I have recently established an expert interdepartmental group to design an equitable property tax having regard to its terms of reference. This group has been asked to report to me by the end of April 2012. I will then bring proposals to Government for decisions on the structure and modalities of the property tax to replace the interim household charge. I agree with the Senator that the current household charge is a flat rate charge which is not progressive or fair. That is the reason I will bring forward proposals arising from the interdepartmental group for implementation in 2013.
Could the Minister reply to my question about houses that are owned by Irish people who are living abroad?
I will revert to the Senator with that clarification.
Departmental Bodies
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This matter is the need for the Minister for Health to clarify the person, persons or bodies that recommended the nomination of each of the 14 members of the recently announced expert group to examine the options to deal with the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the A, B and C v. Ireland case, other than the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais, and the criteria used for selection. The expert group has a difficult task on this sensitive issue, which is to bring forward a series of options on the fundamental issue of balancing the right to life of a mother and that of her unborn child. I welcome the Government’s decision that the expert group should bring forward a series of options rather than just a single recommendation. In that regard I also draw attention to the fact that the Fine Gael Party, in a pre-election commitment, vowed not to introduce abortion legislation and said that pregnant women will receive whatever treatment is necessary to save their lives and the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld. I subscribe fully to that and I hope there will be no deviation from it.
Ireland has a very impressive record over many decades on maternal safety and safe births. Indeed, a recent UN report on the safety of mothers during pregnancy ranked Ireland at the top of the class, a position that must not be compromised in the future and one which, it is to be hoped, the expert group will keep to the forefront of its deliberations. Advocates of abortion should reflect carefully on this and consider that countries such as Britain and Holland, where abortion is readily available, lag behind Ireland with regard to the safety of mothers in pregnancy. In fact, Ireland is safer than a plethora of countries with greater economic resources than ours and with wide-ranging legalised abortion.
The European Court of Human Rights judgment arises from the Supreme Court decision in the X case which held that abortion is lawful when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, and that such risk included that the mother might commit suicide. However, the Supreme Court, surprisingly, reached this verdict without hearing any expert psychiatric evidence. We will all remember the circumstances. We were in the middle of a general election campaign and this became an election issue. As a consequence it did not get the kind of examination it should have got.
In the intervening 20 years, research has increased our knowledge of potential adverse mental health effects associated with abortion and has been greatly advanced in review studies. This raises serious doubts about basing our legislative response on a judgment that lacked the informed findings of more recent research.
In Britain, a high proportion of the 190,000 abortions that took place in 2010 were based on psychiatric grounds. This should be instructive for us and for our expert group, who would be well advised to take account of Professor David Fergusson, particularly given his own personal position as favouring the right to choose. In that regard, it is interesting that this British assumption has been challenged by him since more sophisticated studies have been conducted. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2009, Professor Fergusson concluded that his research clearly suggested that an unwanted pregnancy leading to an abortion was likely to be a risk factor for subsequent mental health problems whereas an unwanted pregnancy leading to birth was not a risk factor for these problems. He concluded that we should be careful in that regard.
Pivotal to the deliberations of the expert group is how the series of options may be ultimately shaped. Therefore, how the people were selected and whom they represent are important components of what the outcome might be. The abortion industry has resources, influence and long tentacles. Planned Parenthood in the United States, for example, had 330,000 abortions in 2010 and facilitated only 841 adoptions. This is a value of life issue. Let us not diminish society's respect for the inherent value of every human life.
I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly.
As the Senator might be aware, on 29 November 2011, the Government approved the establishment of an expert group to recommend a series of options on how to implement the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The establishment of this expert group reflected a commitment contained in the programme for Government.
In terms of its composition, it was agreed that, to fulfil its remit, the group would require experts representing the fields of obstetrics, general practice, psychiatry, law, public policy and professional regulation. The Minister for Health and I have every confidence in the members who have been appointed to the group. In addition, it could consult with interested parties and additional relevant experts and professionals in order to aid its deliberations. The group is due to report back to Government within six months of its establishment.
As the Senator has indicated, proposed nominations were sought from medical training bodies and the professional regulatory bodies, that is, the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais. The Office of the Attorney General was also of assistance in recommending nominations to deal with the legal aspects of the judgment. When the Minister for Health received all of this information, he considered it in consultation with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and made his final decision as to the membership of the expert group.
By way of background, in December 2009, the European Court of Human Rights heard an application by three women that it is a breach of their rights under the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights for the Irish State not to provide abortion in circumstances where a woman wishes to undergo an abortion, the A, B and C cases. The judgment of the court confirmed that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, in the case of the third applicant, Ms C, the court found that Ireland had failed to respect the applicant's private life contrary to Article 8 of the convention. This was because there was no accessible and effective procedure to enable her to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law. The court ruled that "no criteria or procedures have been... laid down in Irish law... by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty..." and held that further legal clarity was required.
Following the judgment, the Government submitted an action plan to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 June 2011 as required by the European Court of Human Rights. The action plan contained a commitment to establish an expert group, drawing on appropriate medical and legal expertise with a view to making recommendations on how this matter should be properly addressed.
The Senator may wish to note that officials in the Department of Health are in the process of compiling a list of biographies of all the members of the expert group. The Minister for Health will be happy to send this document to the Senator once it has been finalised.
I am also pleased to inform the Senator that the first meeting of the expert group took place on 30 January 2012 and I wish it well in its deliberations.
I thank the Minister for his response, which is comprehensive. I welcome the fact that the biographies will be published. Could those biographies include any prior comments on this sensitive topic, if there is any on the record, which would display the disposition of members of the expert group regarding their being pro-abortion?
I ask the Minister to, please, reply briefly. I remind the Senator that this is not the Minister's brief.
I accept that.
I am sure the biographies will speak for themselves. I am also sure the Senator will be well able to google, or otherwise find, the necessary information regarding comments made by people who have very strong views on both sides of this issue.
Job Losses
The Minister is very welcome on this St. Valentine's night. It is really good of him to be here replacing the Minister for Social Protection.
I am delighted to be here on this very important night.
Great.
I wish to ask the Minister for Social Protection the background to the decision to lay off 20 people from Rehab Recycle in Galway, which is part of Rehab Enterprises, in view of the fact that the majority of the people who have been made redundant have special needs. They have intellectual and physical disabilities. I would also like the Minister to elaborate on future Government subsidised work placements for people with intellectual disabilities. This is the first example, in the current recession, of people with intellectual disabilities being laid off. That is what makes this case unique.
Rehab Recyle, in Parkmore, Galway, is part of Rehab Enterprises, and currently has a total workforce of 45. Of these, 33 are classed as general operatives and 80% of these people are classed as having special needs. This week, between 17 and 20 of the employees received redundancy notification and of these, between 14 and 17 are special needs employees. Many of the employees being made redundant have worked for the Rehab company in Parkmore since its start-up in 1995, 17 years ago. Only three of those known to have been made redundant do not have special needs.
These redundancies will have a devastating effect on the employees themselves but, most importantly, on their families. I have already met three of these families. Their concern is what they will do with these adults, young and middle-aged, at home. These special needs employees depend on their jobs to allow them to integrate fully into society and to feel a sense of worth and identity. Without employment they will be left in a vulnerable position with a loss of dignity, sense of identity and self worth, leading, in some cases, to a rapid deterioration in their mental and physical health. That cannot be underestimated.
It is difficult to understand this decision. It makes very little economic sense because the majority of the employees' pay is subsidised by the Government. The very name Rehab Recycle suggests employment for people with special needs, yet the criteria Rehab has put forward for selection for redundancy include words such as, "lack of flexibility, innovation, dexterity, motivation and experience", words that would never be applied to people with special needs. They would not have those capacities. The criteria do not include length of service or loyalty, which these employees have demonstrated during their years of service with the company.
When I met one of the families, whose brother received redundancy notification this week, they asked me to describe the man to the Seanad. I will call him "Terry". He is 50 years of age and has been employed as a general operative by Rehab Recycle since it started in 1995. Last week, he received notification that he was one of the employees at risk and this week, following a meeting with management, he was notified that he was one of the people being made redundant. He works three days a week and lives an independent life in a house that is partly supervised. He has been in this routine for the past 25 years. He is very happy and he is no burden on society.
The family feel that when Terry loses his job, there will be a rapid deterioration of his mental and physical health. They also have very real fears that there appears to be no solid structure in place once he is made redundant. What structures are in place for these people? They feel that those most vulnerable in society are being neglected and that this issue needs to be highlighted and given top priority. In the current environment, the chances these people have to avail of other work opportunities are diminished. Even in the boom times, people with disabilities were the least likely to be employed, so in the midst of a recession, they are really undermined.
The opportunities afforded to people with disabilities by Rehab placement have been invaluable. Being able to play an active role in the community is something that most of us take for granted. We should promote the active involvement of people with intellectual, physical and mental disabilities and I urge the Minister for Social Protection to do all she can to intervene and to ensure that this situation does not go from bad to worse.
There appears to be little or no support structure in place to help these vulnerable people now or in future. For those wishing to move on to new employment, Rehab has promised that a full labour market service tailored to their individual needs will be put in place to assist them to secure alternative employment, either within companies of the Rehab Group or otherwise. However, it is the view of the families that this is just a PR gesture and they do not believe that it is true, even though I clarified it for them. I understand that this transition will help them for up to six months under the National Learning Network. After this the employees will be left to fend for themselves.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions in conclusion.
Tá an t-am istigh.
What supports are being put in place? What is the role of SIPTU in this case? I understand SIPTU was slow to come in. This has been a real shame. These are people with disabilities and some of them had membership in SIPTU. Is their redundancy tax free? Will their jobs be offered back to them in a better climate? If they take redundancy, which they have done in some cases, will that prevent them from taking other jobs? I am talking about people with special needs.
I must apologise for the fact that the Minister is not in a position to attend. I am here to reply on her behalf.
The Department of Social Protection has recently taken over full responsibility for the wage subsidy scheme as the previous FÁS employment services division joined the Department of Social Protection on 1 January 2012. This scheme plays a valued role in supporting employers to provide job opportunities in the open labour market for people with disabilities, and demonstrates the Department's commitment to increasing the employment of people with disabilities in a more mainstreamed work environment.
The wage subsidy scheme is available to employers who provide more than 21 hours of employment per week to disabled workers. The financial supports for employers are structured under three separate strands and companies could benefit under one or more of the strands simultaneously, as appropriate.
Strand 1 is a general subsidy paid to an employer in respect of a disabled person who has a productivity shortfall in excess of 20%, in comparison to an able-bodied peer. The rate of subsidy is €5.30 per hour and is based on the number of hours worked, giving a potential annual subsidy of €10,748 per annum based on a 39 hour week. Strand 2 is intended to cover additional supervisory, management and other work based costs that may arise when employing two or more eligible people with disabilities. Strand 2 is a percentage top-up of the wage subsidy and is based on the overall number of disabled employees employed under Strand 1. For example, three to six disabled employees get a 10% top-up of wage subsidy paid, seven to 11 employees get 20%, 12 to 16 get 30%, 17 to 22 get 40% and 23 employees and more get 50%.
Strand 3 is an additional grant for employers who employ 30 or more disabled workers with the support of the wage subsidy scheme. This element is a contribution towards the employment and expenses of an employment assistance officer, who is employed in a supportive role to assist the employees with a disability. The focus of the EAO's work concentrates on the personal, social, health or family circumstances of disabled workers which might inhibit them from remaining in employment. The grant for this strand is €30,000 per annum.
The Rehab recycling group in Galway has 34 employees for whom it receives a strand 1 wage subsidy of €5.30 per hour, subject to a maximum of €10,748 per annum in respect of each employee. The company also receives the maximum 50% top-up subsidy under strand 2. Nationally, the Rehab Group employs 192 people with disabilities, for whom it receives WSS funding. It is the only employer currently eligible to receive a strand 3 subsidy. This hourly subsidy rate of €5.30 per hour was originally index linked to the minimum wage. However, the hourly rate was not altered when the minimum wage was last reduced.
I stress that the wage subsidy scheme continues to be available as an incentive for employers who provide jobs for people with disabilities. I take on board what the Senator said in respect of redundancy and other issues, and I will ask the Minister for Social Protection to reply directly to her on that matter.
I thank the Minister for taking the Adjournment, given that it is not within his brief, but I have a raised a number of questions that are not answered in this reply.
The Minister has said that the Minister responsible will respond. There is no point in hammering him on this issue.
I would never hammer the Minister. He is too big. I thank him, because it is late. I would appreciate if he would relay the other questions I raised to the Minister for Social Protection.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 February 2012.