I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Andrew Doyle.
Commencement Matters
State Pension (Contributory) Eligibility
I thank the Cathaoirleach. I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for coming.
My Commencement matter refers to the many ladies who were covered by the marriage bar. They were in public sector employment but forced to leave work through no fault of their own. Up until the abolition of this measure in 1973, women in a number of public sector bodies were obliged to resign on marriage. Most of the women in question had been covered by the State pension scheme and did not accumulate credits through the then social welfare stamp. The superannuation contributions that had been deducted were refunded, leaving them with no pension entitlements whatsoever.
The marriage bar was abolished in 1973. Some of the ladies in question decided to return to employment, but there was no automatic right to reinstatement and instead they had to compete for advertised vacancies. If they returned to public sector employment, they were entitled to buy back their previous service, but the period between resignation and reinstatement was lost forever. If they returned to private sector employment, they started anew, with no credits whatsoever for the earlier years of their lives.
Most of the women in question have now reached retirement age and find themselves on reduced pensions or being means-tested for a non-contributory pension as a result of the enforcement of an unfair measure. I know that there are many others on reduced pensions for a wide variety of reasons. In 2010, 43% of men were on reduced pensions, while 57% received the full rate of pension. The corresponding figure for women was 59% on reduced pensions, while 41% received the full rate of pension. These are interesting statistics and I hope to acquire the 2015 figures. It is clear that the group of women to whom I refer were unfairly and unjustifiably treated by the State. Surely they are entitled to the restoration of the rights that were taken from them. I request the Minister of State and his colleagues to examine this matter sympathetically to see how they could alleviate the position of the women in question.
The second category covered by my Commencement matter includes people who chose to concentrate on looking after their families in the home. They were left with no credits whatsoever and are now totally dependent on receiving a non-contributory pension if they qualify following a means test. I accept that this category extends well beyond former public sector employees and applies to many men, as well as women. They have served the State well and saved a considerable amount of public money by their dedication and caring attitude. There is surely a great case for looking after these valuable citizens in their later years. I ask that they be regarded as self-employed and at least given the option to participate in a contributory pension scheme to give them the credits that would enable them to obtain a full contributory pension when they become senior citizens.
It is vitally important that people have the opportunity to ensure they have at least a measure of security as they approach retirement age. The knowledge that they have pension entitlements would be a great source of reassurance for them at a very vulnerable time in their lives.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. As she will be aware, the marriage bar was a rule that was in place in most of the public service and some private sector employments, whereby women were required to leave their employment on marriage. It was abolished in 1973 when Ireland joined the EEC. Where such employees were public servants, they paid a reduced rate of PRSI which did not provide cover for the State pension and the marriage bar would not have impacted on their State pension entitlement. It may, however, have impacted on their entitlement to a public service pension, which is a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
The State pension system comprises a number of schemes based on criteria such as contributions paid, income need and other factors. This is to ensure people have an adequate standard of living in old age. The State contributory pension is one such scheme and its rate of payment is related to contributions made over the years into the Social Insurance Fund. As such, those who have paid more into the fund are more likely to be paid under the scheme. The actuarial review of the fund in 2012 confirmed that the fund provided better value for female than male contributors owing to the redistributive nature of the fund. Entitlement to the contributory pension is calculated by means of a yearly average calculation, whereby the total contributions paid or credited are divided by the number of years of the working life. Payment rates are banded. For example, someone with a yearly average of 48 contributions will qualify for a full pension, whereas someone with a yearly average of 20 may qualify at the 85% rate.
The homemaker's scheme, introduced in 1994, makes qualification easier for those who took time out of the workforce on caring duties. It allows up to 20 such years in the period since its introduction to be disregarded when the yearly average is calculated, making it easier to qualify for a higher rate of payment. I am informed that the cost of backdating the scheme before 1994 could be as high as €280 million per year. Given that this would not benefit the poorest pensioners with little or no means, namely, State non-contributory pension and maximum rate contributory pensioners of low means, the Government would have to consider such proposals carefully. Such changes would impact deeply on moneys available to fund measures for all pensioners and others who depend on payments from the Department of Social Protection, many of whom live on much lower incomes. Where someone does not qualify for a full rate contributory pension, he or she may qualify for a means-tested non-contributory pension, amounting to 95% of the maximum contributory rate. Alternatively, if the spouse is a State pensioner, his or her most beneficial payment may be the increase for a qualified adult payment, amounting to up to 90% of a full contributory pension.
Work is under way to replace the yearly average system with a total contributions approach. Under this approach, the rate of pension paid will more closely reflect the total number of contributions. The position of homemakers is being carefully considered in developing the scheme. It is expected that this approach to pension qualification will replace the current one from around 2020.
Is the Senator happy with that response?
I thank the Minister of State for his response.
Briefly.
The fact that the homemaker's scheme is being considered and included is to be welcomed. I hope we will see something happen in the near future.
Fish Quotas
I have just realised I may have given Senator Maria Byrne lady's first priority over Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.
Not at all.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this Commencement matter which relates to the Celtic Sea herring quota distribution. The quota distribution comes from the pelagic allocation to Ireland. There are eight principal areas in the management of pelagic stocks, of which the Celtic Sea herring fishery is one.
Under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, the Minister has the power to make legal instruments such as fishery management notices on the opening and closing of a season or the provisional extension of a season where there are extenuating circumstances, as in this case where the herring allocation for the Celtic Sea went unused in late 2015 owing to the terrible weather that hit Ireland, particularly in the Minister of State's neck of the woods in counties Wexford and Waterford, particularly the Waterford Estuary. This is an issue which a colleague of mine, Councillor Eddie Mulligan, has pursued for some time and he has made specific recommendations to the Minister. Former Deputy John Browne and Deputy Mary Butler have also pursued it, as have others.
What is required is flexibility. The herring quota available in the Celtic Sea is ring-fenced at approximately 1,700 tonnes per annum. Last December 1,000 tonnes of this allocation to Ireland went unused in this area. The reason was the detrimental weather. What was sought at the time was permission to carry forward at least some of the tonnage for vessels with a proven track record, even though this is not a requirement of the quota allocation for extending the quota into the following year. Unfortunately, this did not happen and, therefore, fishing activity this year is eating into this year's quota, not the surplus quota from last year.
I seek to ascertain whether there is a willingness to examine this issue and provide a ministerial direction to carry forward quota into next year. Traditionally the pelagic herring quota is fished in the autumn or the spring, but given that last autumn the weather was so bad the same could happen this year. If this were to happen, the quota would go unused also. This would be to the detriment of Irish fishermen in general, particularly in this region, given the situation last year. This is something that could happen in the other areas in the pelagic stocks management model, but this is the case I am raising today. I hope the Minister of State will have some good news for me.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I am covering for the Minister, Deputy Michael Creed, on this occasion.
The Celtic Sea sentinel herring fishery is a herring fishery for small boats under 17 m in length operating in an area off the south-east coast known as the Dunmore Box. This is an open access fishery and track record is not considered to be an appropriate management tool for the small operators in this fishery. The ministerial policy for Celtic Sea herring was adopted in 2012 after more than a year of intensive consultations with stakeholders. The policy sets down the arrangements for the proper and effective management, conservation and rational exploitation of the herring stocks.
The 2015 quota for the sentinel fishery was 2,212 tonnes; however, only 990 tonnes were landed owing to bad weather. Under national management arrangements, quotas are allocated within the year. Under long-standing policy, quotas may not be carried forward into the following year in respect of individual boats or groups of boats within a fishery, for example, the sentinel herring Celtic Sea fishery. This policy protects the public ownership of quotas and protects against property rights being established which would transfer ownership of quotas into private hands. At national level, up to 10% of uncaught quota may be carried forward to the following year in line with the provisions of the EU regulation at national level. In 2015, on an exceptional basis owing to the impact of the Russian embargo on the pelagic markets, the limit for carryover was increased to 25% from 2015 into 2016. The revised available quota for 2016 is 17,492 tonnes, of which 4,147 tonnes were carried forward from 2015.
Owing to the low catches in the sentinel fishery in 2015 and at the request of the National Inshore Fisheries Forum for increased fishing opportunities for the inshore fleet, the Minister proposed, on an exceptional basis, a once-off increase of 500 tonnes for this fishery for 2016. He sought the views of stakeholders on his proposal and in all instances the views received fully supported it. Accordingly, the Minister transferred 500 tonnes from the main fisheries allocation to the sentinel fishery for 2016. This increase of 500 tonnes will not involve any change of ministerial policy on the management of the Celtic Sea herring fishery as this proposal will only be applicable to 2016. The total allocation to the sentinel fishery for 2016 now stands at 2,380 tonnes. In January 2016 a three-week sentinel fishery operated, which recorded landings of 535 tonnes. The available balance for the autumn is 1,845 tonnes.
The Minister asked the Celtic Sea herring management advisory committee, which represents the fishing industry, to take cognisance of the impact of the opening dates on the sentinel fishery in 2015 when making its recommendation for this year. The committee has advised that, in its experience of the fishery, the herring stock does not come close enough inshore for small sentinel vessels to catch it until around early November. Having considered the committee’s formal advice, I am advised that the Minister has set the opening date for the sentinel fishery as 6 November. Vessels may be booked into this fishery with the Department before close of business on Friday, 21 October.
I hope that answers the Senator's question.
It does and to be fair, the Minister of State's answer is progress. The other suggestion being made locally is to extend the season to the end of January. I understand from reading some of the material that this may not be possible under European Union regulations. I ask the Minister to examine that option.
I am not sure what the position is, but I will check.
Mayoral Election
I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this matter for discussion. The proposal for a directly elected mayor of Dublin has been knocking around since the mid-2000s. Credit is due to the former Minister for Environment and Local Government, Mr. Noel Dempsey, for taking an enlightened view on this issue. His successor, Mr. John Gormley, and my party colleague, Councillor Dermot Lacey, have also been strong advocates for the direct election of a mayor of the capital city or the Dublin region for a five-year period. With a population of approximately 1.3 million people, the Dublin region needs a directly elected mayor who can be a strong ambassador internationally and organise integrated planning across the four local authorities, especially with regard to investment, housing and planning.
Three local authorities adjoin Dublin Bay and this requires joined-up thinking which is also needed on the DART underground proposal, the metro north project to Swords and proposals to connect Tallaght and Clondalkin to the city centre. Business representatives in Dublin increasingly ask me why a city of 1.3 million people does not directly elect a mayor for a five-year term. The time has come for change. I commissioned a survey in September which found that 74% of Dubliners supported a directly elected mayor. We constantly try to persuade young people to engage with democracy and vote in elections.
The survey told me that 95.7%% of the group aged between 18 and 24 years saw that Dublin would benefit from having an elected mayor. I believe the time has come to have one. I ask the Minister to lay down a timeframe and a pathway whereby a plebiscite could be held in Dublin in 2018. Many Ministers from different parties have been speaking about this issue for 15 years to try to bring forward legislation on the matter. I ask the Minister of State to lay out the pathway in order that a plebiscite could be held in 2018 to allow for the election of a directly elected mayor in 2019 to coincide with the local and European elections. It would be a fitting legacy for the Minister of State were he to spearhead this issue and deliver on something that has been spoken about for 15 years. Let us go and do it now.
I acknowledge the presence of a good colleague in the Visitors Gallery, former Senator Michael Comiskey from lovely Leitrim. I wish him well.
Michael is very welcome, as are my two neighbours beside him, Donal and Maura Callery, who are also very interested in agricultural matters. Michael could have a good conversation.
I thank Senator Kevin Humphreys for raising this very important matter. As this is the second time today that Noel Dempsey has been praised in my presence, I had better be careful in what I say. As a former colleague, I have listened to him being talked about while at Meath County Council and again today. As he had some far-reaching views when it came to the reform of local government with which most people would agree, the praise is rightly due.
I apologise that my colleague the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, could not make it to the House today. I am taking the debate on his behalf.
A Programme for a Partnership Government includes a commitment to consider directly elected mayors in cities as part of wider potential local government reform measures, including greater devolution, smaller local electoral areas, municipal governments and supports for councillors. The programme states that having consulted widely with all relevant stakeholders, a report on all of these issues will be prepared by the Minister by mid-2017 for the Government and the Oireachtas. Scoping work on the development of proposals to address the range of issues mentioned in the programme for Government is being undertaken in the Department. This will identify the matters to be addressed in the report to be submitted by mid-2017. Decisions will be a matter for the Government and the Oireachtas, as appropriate, following consideration of the report.
On the issue before the House, there are important arguments put forward for creating the office of a directly elected mayor for Dublin. Before reaching a conclusion however, there are significant issues that must be addressed. The Senator has put across very well his own research on people's desire for this proposal. It is important that the matter be addressed properly.
First and foremost, it would be necessary to decide on a range of substantive statutory functions that might be assigned to a directly elected mayor for Dublin. Of what would the directly elected mayor be in charge? What budgetary powers would he or she have and how will these functions impact on other public bodies at central and local government? It may well be right to make significant changes in governance for the benefit of the Dublin area, but we need to be very clear on what we are doing and why we are doing it. There is no point in creating an office with a weak or duplicated mandate that would make the ultimate goal of delivering better services for the citizen harder, not easier, to achieve. All aspects of the governance of the Dublin metropolitan area will need to be taken into account, including questions about an overall regional authority, the relationship with the wider Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, impacts on the existing Dublin authorities and local area governance in the villages around the city and county of Dublin. In addition, any proposal for a directly elected mayor must have full regard to cost implications and staffing issues. Resources would be needed to support the performance of the statutory functions assigned to the mayor and to support the operation of the mayor's office.
The Minister will approach this issue in his planned report for the Government and the Oireachtas on the basis of the benefits that have been identified with regard to the substantive functions to be performed by a mayor that would improve public services for people living in and visiting the area and whether these benefits would outweigh the cost that would be involved.
I again thank the Senator. It is an important debate to have and it is probably only warming up. I have no doubt that we will be here again to discuss this issue in the months ahead. There is a commitment. The Senator wanted a timeline; it is to bring the report to the Houses in mid-2017. That would still give enough time to implement it after that.
Is Senator Kevin Humphreys happy or would he like to ask a brief supplementary question?
No, with no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, I am very disappointed with the response. What I hear in it is a kicking of the can down the road.
The previous Ministers, Mr. John Gormley and Mr. Noel Dempsey, outlined the powers. The fact we could have a directly elected mayor for very little cost has been widely debated. However, democracy is not cheap. If Dublin is not doing well, Ireland is not doing well. Dublin is a main driver for financial investment. We saw the result of the recent referendum put to our neighbours in the United Kingdom in which they decided to exit the European Union. Now more than ever, the Dublin region needs a directly elected mayor. It has been supported in the recent research I have done. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce and IBEC also support the idea of a directly elected mayor. I am disappointed by the response of the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and, to be honest, I hear echoes of the former Minister, Mr. Phil Hogan, in it. That is not something I would normally say about the Minister.
We need speed and action. There are many ways in which we can reduce the number of councillors in the Dublin region to make it a cost-effective measure. What we really need and what is being said by the citizens of Dublin and the Chamber of Commerce is to let citizens in Dublin vote. We have been promised this for 15 years and there has been no action. From the response, I hear that we may receive a report by 2017. Let us make a clear decision, show leadership and put the question to the citizens of Dublin on whether they want to have a directly elected mayor who could drive planning, change, investment and housing in the capital city.
To be very clear, the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, is following what is laid out in the programme for Government. He has promised to bring forward a report in mid-2017, which still matches the timeline the Senator envisages. We have to recognise that it is not just the Senator and his research that we have to consult. We have to consult all of the various stakeholders. We have come through major change in local government in the past couple of years under the last Government. Some of it has worked quite well, while there are other areas in which concerns have been raised. The Minister wants to make sure we make this decision for the right reasons and that it will lead on to better local government and better decision-making. I understand what the Senator is saying about it being more cost-effective and more effective for decision-making, but the point is not just to have a vote for the sake of it. It has to be genuinely for the right reasons and we have to have it thought through. The Senator knows how the Minister approaches his work. He thinks everything through and makes sure there is a reason for it. The report will be brought before the Houses in mid-2017 and a decision will be made on it that will bring us to the next step.
At this stage, it is worthwhile using the next four or five months to consult all stakeholders, get everyone's opinion on the issue and make the right decision on behalf of the citizens of Dublin city. The Senator has made very valid arguments, about which there is no doubt. However, we have to make sure we avoid duplication. We have seen it in the past in local authorities and are trying to eliminate it. If we get this right, it will be a worthwhile project. It is important that we wait for the report and take it step by step. It still means that we can match the timelines the Senator envisages. There is nothing to say it cannot be achieved if the Oireachtas wants to go that way. The report in mid-2017 will be the first step and we will take it from there. I will make sure the Minister hears the Senator's views and I will report back to him.
I am sure we have not heard the end of the matter.
Sitting suspended at 3.05 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.