Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 6

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

In the course of the budget, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs introduced 16 savage social welfare cuts. One of these related to the widow's pension and lone parent's allowance. Last week the Government voted down a Private Members' motion in the names of the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, in response to the debate, promised a review. The Tánaiste, at last weekend's love-in in Killarney, spoke about social justice, despite that the Progressive Democrats are part of the Government that made this decision in the first instance. In a written reply today, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, said that the decision was made because of pressure on Government spending.

The Revenue Commissioners have indicated that the Exchequer will take in at least €540 million, and probably much more, from settlements relating to offshore accounts made yesterday. The Government clearly has no excuse for maintaining this cut. There is now a surplus €1.4 billion in the social insurance fund. The widow's pension is a contributory scheme into which widows pay. A total of 2,000 widows and their families will be directly affected by this decision. As was pointed out, these people comprise a group that is the most vulnerable in society. It is a lousy cutback and it is a shame that the Government inflicted it upon them.

I want the Taoiseach to confirm that he will go beyond merely carrying out the review to which the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, referred and indicate to the House that this disgraceful decision will be reversed. Has the Taoiseach considered last week's debate, the public comment on this matter and the extent of concern expressed by the widows' association and by people in general? Has he further considered that it is hypocritical in the extreme for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to say that the cut was introduced because of pressure on Government spending, especially when there is a surplus of €1.4 billion in the scheme to which I refer and when the cutback will only lead to a saving of €5.8 million?

The Taoiseach

The Minister stated that she is keeping this issue under review and that she is meeting some of the bodies involved. She has already met the widows' association and has been in contact with some of the other bodies involved in this area. She has engaged in such contacts as part of her examination before bringing any proposal forward.

The reason this matter was under consideration——

Mr. S. Ryan

There is no justification for it.

The Taoiseach

——is the general principle common to social welfare systems throughout the world that a person is only entitled to one income or maintenance payment at any one time. That is how the issue arose.

Cases about the effects of this provision on widows have been made in this House and elsewhere and I do not need to restate them. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, introduced €530 million worth of additional increases bringing her total budget to €11.26 billion. It is clear the Minister took account of general principles when considering this issue. She also considered, based on the data given to her at the time, the small fraction of the approximately 120,000 persons in receipt of non-contributory widower's pensions affected by this measure and tried to make provision for the €0.5 billion extra required from her budget.

Deputy Kenny is correct. The figures for the first quarter are better than those on which the Minister for Social and Family Affairs worked at that time. We should also take account, not that it is relevant only to this issue, of the 85% increase in the last few years in widow's contributory pensions for those aged over 65 and the increase of 55% for those under 66 years of age.

Mr. S. Ryan

They are still expected to live on €140 per week.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

The Taoiseach

The recent budget also provided an increase to €2,700 in the widowed-parent grant. There is no need for me to add to what has already been said by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. She will meet the groups involved and is keeping the implementation of these reforms under review. I am sure she will return to them.

Mr. Kenny

The late Ernest Blythe took a shilling from old age pensioners and the repercussions, in political terms, against Cumann na Gael and Fine Gael Party lasted for 60 years.

This is a shameful act by the Government. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a surplus of €1.4 billion in the social insurance fund? Does he agree with the Minister's written reply last week that this measure was introduced in response to pressure on Government spending? Does he not find it completely and utterly hypocritical that on the day the Committee of Public Accounts publishes its report on Punchestown, the Accounting Officer of a Department is being held up on the basis that this scheme which cost €15 million, three times the cost of this cutback, was never examined? The consequence of this is that the 2,000 widows affected by a scheme into which they paid contributions are now paying for the Punchestown deal as outlined by the Committee of Public Accounts report published a few minutes ago. Is that not hypocritical? Will the Taoiseach now state his intention to reverse this decision forthwith? This shameful cutback of €5.8 million should not be borne by the vulnerable in our society. Every Member from the Government parties knows this is morally wrong.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy should at least acknowledge that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, gave a €10 per week increase to all widows. To refer to a general cutback is incorrect. I also stated that a small fraction of the 120,000 people who will gain from that benefit would have been affected by this measure.

Mr. Crawford

They do not matter.

The Taoiseach

I also stated that the Minister will speak with the various organisations before reaching any conclusions on this issue. The general principle exists across social welfare schemes throughout the world that a person is entitled to only one income maintenance payment at any one time.

Mr. S. Ryan

That does not apply in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will have to ask Deputy Ryan to leave the House if he continues to interrupt the Taoiseach.

Mr. S. Ryan

It is pathetic listening to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

That principle does apply here.

Ms McManus

There are no problems with ministerial pensions.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That is a hollow defence.

The Taoiseach

It is obvious Deputy Ryan knows nothing about the social welfare code.

Mr. S. Ryan

I know a great deal about it.

The Taoiseach

If he did, he would know that is taken into account in every category.

The Minister has given a commitment to meet with the bodies concerned and to bring forward her own proposals on this issue. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Stagg

These are her proposals.

Mr. Rabbitte

This is my first opportunity to ask the Taoiseach why he told the House on 17 February that the Government had no plans for a referendum. Three weeks later, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, stated that such plans do exist. Why did the Taoiseach change his mind? What changed his mind?

I was greatly inspired at the weekend by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform urging us to reclaim the Republic, something with which I agree but the cardinal principle of any republic is equality before the law. He now seems intent, with the Taoiseach's support, on introducing a law to create three categories of citizen.

The primary reason for this referendum according to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, was based on an approach made to him by the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals to change the law. The masters issued a statement denying they ever made any such approach. As well as misrepresenting the masters, the Minister also inadvertently, we are told, misrepresented the date when he said he met with them in October of last year. He met with them in October 2002 at a meeting organised by his officials.

If a problem exists in the Dublin maternity hospitals in terms of their not being able to cope with the number of non-national births, then that problem should be addressed. The difficulties we are encountering when tabling parliamentary questions is that neither the Minister for Health and Children nor the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can provide us with figures in terms of what contribution non-nationals are making to the "problem". Is it the 46,000 people to whom the Tanáiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, gave permits last year or is it those referred to by the Minister as "tourists"? The only figures I can find, in terms of pressure on the Dublin maternity hospitals, state that we had 82,000 births in the Republic in 1980, an average of five bed nights per person or 400,000 in total. The figures for 2003 are 55,000 births with an average of two and a half bed nights or a total of 137,000 bed nights. That comes out at 137,000 bed nights in 2003 as compared to 400,000 bed nights in 1980. Perhaps there is intolerable pressure.

Will the Taoiseach observe the Lenihan rules in terms of providing this House and society the opportunity they deserve to consider something as important as a referendum on citizenship?

The Taoiseach

The programme for Government drawn up almost two years ago and agreed by the parties in Government, contained a commitment to review a number of applications from non-nationals to remain in this State based on parentage of Irish-born children and to initiate all-party discussions on the issue of such constitutional or other measures that might be required. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has, as he has stated many times, kept that matter under review. This is not something new, the situation has been clear for some time.

The Government has not yet made a decision on the type of legislation required or the timing of its introduction. The purpose of the discussions in which we are engaged is to examine the possibility of having a referendum on this issue, something we believe is desirable. The purpose of the amendment to the Constitution is to ensure we deal with the issue of non-nationals entering this country for the purpose of childbirth. The referendum would not relate to people already settled here or to those here on work permits.

While the maternity hospitals did not raise the issue in the manner suggested by Deputy Rabbitte, they have raised the issue of people arriving in this country close to the end of their pregnancy thereby putting at risk their health and that of the unborn child. That issue has been mentioned time and again. The Government considers it appropriate that Irish citizenship for a child born to non-national parents should not derive solely from the circumstances of birth in Ireland and that there should be a stronger connection with Ireland on the part of at least one of the parents for the privilege of Irish citizenship to be available to their children born here. That is how it would be in any other country.

Allied to that, though not by any means the primary reason, there are dangers to the health of the mother and the child. That is the point being made by the masters and others. The referendum proposal will, if approved, remove the pressures often put on such expectant mothers, either by their own ambitions for their children or by those of their partners, which encourage them to put their lives at risk. That is an important matter. However, whether the number is a few, a few hundred or a few thousand, people are coming from countries outside the European Union, and outside Europe — though it sometimes depends on how one defines "Europe" — solely for the purpose of getting Irish citizenship and leaving as quickly as they came. That is the situation, and we should not allow our citizenship rights to be opened up. That would create all kinds of problems and difficulties in future. However, all those matters will be addressed if the Government introduces legislation.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Taoiseach says that this is not new. What is new is that the Taoiseach told the House on 17 February that no referendum was planned this year. He has not explained that. Neither is it new that the Taoiseach wrote to my predecessor as leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, when he raised this point at the time of the Good Friday Agreement and told him expressly that peace on our island took precedence over the question of citizenship. If the Taoiseach is saying that the problem exists of people visiting our jurisdiction purely for the purpose of gaining a passport — it makes a change from how they used to do so — and that that is the point, perhaps he will answer the question, or get one of his Ministers to do so, of how many of them are there per annum? There is no point in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, eliding one into the other and saying that there are so many non-national births in this jurisdiction. How many of them are "tourists", to use his term? Can we have an answer to that and to the Lenihan prescription, which was very clear?

An Ceann Comhairle

Please conclude, Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Rabbitte

Deputy Brian Lenihan, as Chairman of the all-party committee, made several recommendations on how to process a referendum. He even went as far as to say that the committee recommended that the Standing Orders of the House be amended to embody a presumption that every Deputy and Senator would have sufficient opportunity to make whatever contribution he or she wishes. Will that happen or will there be a guillotine? I ask the Taoiseach to deal with this question and not avoid it. Is it his plan to introduce this legislation the week after Easter, and is it his plan to go ahead——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Rabbitte

——with what the Irish Refugee Council described as the "frenzy" of an election? I warn the Taoiseach that, just because his American guru has advised him to do that, he should not presume partisan advantage to exploit such an issue in the context of elections.

The Taoiseach

I do not know what Deputy Rabbitte means by "American guru". We have had no research on the issue. I heard his comments last week, and he is wrong yet again on that issue. Deputy Rabbitte is right that I did not visualise, when I wrote to Deputy Quinn in 1998 on the issue, Russians, Moldovans and Ukrainians coming to this country simply——

Mr. Rabbitte

He raised it in his letter.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte. Please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

The Taoiseach

I am trying to answer the Deputy's question. I did not think at that time that people would come here from those countries for two or three weeks to have children, simply for the benefit of Irish citizenship.

Mr. Rabbitte

Are the Russians and Moldovans coming?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte, but we must allow the Taoiseach to continue.

The Taoiseach

Regardless of whether the figures are enormous, as the Deputy correctly said, we got rid of the passports for investment scheme on the basis that there were only a handful, and that was the right thing to do. However, on the question of the figures so far, genuine tourists are doing that. It is well known around Europe that we are the only people who can be used and abused in such a way.

Mr. Rabbitte

Quantify them.

Mr. Allen

What is the number?

The Taoiseach

I am not arguing with the Deputy but telling him that it is fact. Whether the number is huge or small is unimportant, since the loophole should not exist. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner shows that almost 60%, almost two thirds, of female asylum seekers aged 16 and over were pregnant at the time of application. Those are its figures.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please conclude.

The Taoiseach

One can see very clearly what is happening. That was not envisaged, and that is why this issue must be examined.

Mr. Gormley

Why is the Government rushing?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy Gormley.

The Taoiseach

It is not rushing. The Deputy knows well that our system is being rampantly abused.

Mr. Gormley

I know very well what has happened.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Gormley will leave the House if he does not cease interrupting. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Mr. Rabbitte

Is the——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, but I remind Deputy Rabbitte that he went two minutes over the time allotted in the Standing Order. He asked three further questions by way of interruption, and it is now Deputy Ó Caoláin's turn to submit a question.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

As a direct result of statements made to the media by the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, in the course of her weekend conference, SIPTU has withdrawn from negotiations on the next phase of the Sustaining Progress agreement. The Tánaiste said in the course of the interview that the future of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition would be in doubt if the Progressive Democrats' agenda of wholesale privatisation of the public transport system were not pushed through. The Tánaiste made no reference whatsoever to the matters concerning the existing workforce in our public transport service in all its shapes and guises. Her utterances have cast doubt on the Taoiseach's assurances to the sector, which brought SIPTU back from the brink of industrial action.

The Taoiseach stated here last summer that he was increasingly not a supporter of the privatisation of semi-State companies, even if that was not the view of his colleagues. Has that position changed? Does the difference between the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats members of the coalition that his commentary pointed up still hold, or is there, as a colleague is suggesting, now no difference at all? Who now determines Government policy on privatisation? Has the Tánaiste raised this matter directly with the Taoiseach and indicated as clearly as in her utterances that she would be prepared to bring down the coalition if her Thatcherite agenda were not pressed ahead with? Did the Tánaiste or the Progressive Democrats indicate at any time that the failure to deliver on the promised ending of hospital waiting lists, the proposal, also reneged on, to extend medical cards to a further 200,000 people or the issue of the 130,000 people currently on housing waiting lists throughout the jurisdiction would cause them to leave the coalition?

The Taoiseach

I hope the leadership of SIPTU continues in the talks on the second half of the national wage agreement. I hope that will be the case. I understand their concerns. In line with An Agreed Programme for Government, the Government's position on the future of the commercial State companies has been made clear during a series of contacts — in person and in writing by myself and other Ministers — with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and with the SIPTU leadership, throughout the course of Sustaining Progress and throughout the lifetime of this Government.

The Government's commitment to the role of the semi-State sector in providing world-class services at a competitive price to the consumer, with a viable long-term future for individual companies based on the most appropriate form of ownership structure and particular needs, remains unchanged. The principles laid down in my letter at the commencement of the Sustaining Progress talks also remain unchanged. These principles are: the need for a strategy for sharing information and analysis about issues and options facing each company in the sector within which it operates; systematic learning from the experience of other countries, as a guide to dealing with the issues which may arise; sharing the Government's thinking at the earliest appropriate time; basing policies in all cases concerning the public interest — and in particular that of meeting the needs of the people — on how to achieve the desired effect without any ideological assumption as to which corporate structure or strategy best meets the objective; and basing this engagement on a recognition that the public interest is best served by a culture of innovation, flexibility and cost effectiveness in the operations of State companies. I made that clear to them at the start of the talks.

Over the last fortnight I have made clear that information would be shared and appropriate time for consideration given as regards future plans for CIE and Aer Rianta. We obviously want to get on with that and the proposed legislation will be introduced in the next Dáil term. There are difficulties in some sectors of industry, domestically and globally. This is equally true of the State sector. There is clearly a great deal of sensitivity on all sides about possible changes. We have to deal with that. There is the issue of An Post, which is with the Labour Relations Commission. Needless to say, we want everyone to look towards long-term viability and to try to resolve the issues. The times of change are also exciting. I understand that they can appear threatening to some trade unions and their members. However, we want to work with them on these major issues.

The answer to much of the uncertainty that surrounds the future of Aer Rianta, CIE and other State companies is to be found in the dedicated talks process that has been set down. The framework for partnership continues to offer the best environment for dialogue around the future of the State companies. This is one which I hope, on reflection, is possible for all parties to participate in. I acknowledge the good work that is going on in the transportation study and on some of the other issues. The future of the State sector is closely linked to the health of the wider economy. I hope the pay talks which have a crucial role in restoring our competitiveness and maintaining employment across the sectors, will continue and that SIPTU will be involved in that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply but one of the first questions that his response must prompt is whether he is less or more supportive of and an advocate for privatisation. That clarification is required. Does he not accept that the last thing the public transport system needs is plundering by privateers who will be out to cherrypick the most lucrative and profitable areas to the detriment of all? What assurances can he give, not only to the employees of the various sectors under the CIE umbrella, but to the public who depend on it, that the public transport system in this State will not only be maintained, but invested in, to ensure that we have a fully-integrated, effective and efficient service? Will the Taoiseach say whether, in the course of handing over the policy making role to the PDs within his coalition, if he has also handed over the title of "the republican party" as Deputy McDowell has proclaimed himself as the only and the greatest republican in the land and Fianna Fáil has erased it from its title?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded. I must ask him to give way to the Taoiseach.

Mr. D. Ahern

I remember the people in my constituency in County Louth having to take the bus across the Border.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption, please?

Mr. D. Ahern

I cannot take it. How many times was it blown up?

The Taoiseach

The discussions on the reform of the transport system under the 1932 Act are in the transport framework. I hope they come to a successful outcome. Deputy Ó Caoláin will be well aware that the issue of the opening up of transport is taking place worldwide and that is inevitable. We saw it last year with rail. The agreed reforms are best carried out between the CIE management, the Government and the unions. That is the best way to reach agreement and that is what I am in favour of. The negotiating parties are making good progress.

As regards the other State companies, my view is that the issues should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In some areas, the management, workers and the Government would be in favour of opening up a particular sector for investment. That can be the best solution for the State company concerned. In other cases, I would not agree with that course of action and believe they should be retained in State ownership. However, there must be flexibility as regards change. State companies cannot just remain static. They have not done so, by and large, over the last 30, 40 or 50 years. They must always be braced for reform. Each situation must be looked at on a case-by-case basis and the best strategy at the time for the company should be pursued.