Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach questions about the establishment of Irish Water, particularly whether he could confirm that senior members of local authorities had left their positions in local authorities with very generous pension lump sums - in one case totalling up to €340,000 and in another case €270,000 - before moving seamlessly to Irish Water, where they will again receive very high salaries and top-up bonuses as well. The Taoiseach refused to answer the question yesterday. Irish Water also refused to answer the question or to confirm or deny the allegation. Does the Taoiseach accept that this has happened - that very senior members of local authorities who have received very generous packages, totalling up to €340,000 with pensions, are being employed by Irish Water? Does the Taoiseach consider it right that this should happen and that such staff should move into positions where there will be top-up bonuses in addition to what they already have? Does he think it is fair or right and does he stand over it?
Leaders' Questions
First, I did not refuse to answer Deputy Martin’s question at all. I said that the detail of the question asked was not available to me and I confirmed that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government had formally written to the chief executive of Irish Water seeking all aspects of the remuneration policies in respect of the people who work for Irish Water, and I said that when the information was supplied to the Minister it would be made public.
As I said to Deputy Martin last week and the previous week, Irish Water is a public utility and it will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It will also be subject to parliamentary questions in the House. The information Deputy Martin requested in the interests of the public will be published. I do not have the answers to the question he asked yesterday.
The Taoiseach does have the answers.
I did not refuse to answer the Deputy’s question. When the information is supplied by Irish Water it will be made public in everybody’s interest.
The Taoiseach does have the answers and he does know the story. What I have said is fact. I asked the Taoiseach whether he thinks it is right, given where we are, that people can leave with very generous lump sums and huge pensions and move seamlessly into a new operation where they will enjoy top-up bonuses in addition to high salaries. This is a very important issue for a lot of people watching. There are many young, talented people who are specialists in water who did not get a look-in when it came to recruiting senior personnel to Irish Water. More than half the staff are from local authorities, Bord Gáis and other State agencies or from companies that had strong connections with these. Young, talented, qualified persons with considerable experience did not get a look-in. That is what has happened in this case. The perception is that there was an inside track - a club of sorts - operating in terms of recruitment practices.
We all know about the clubs.
That is what people believe. We have been raising the issue for two to three weeks and the Taoiseach has said there is nothing to hide, yet he could not confirm either today or yesterday some simple realities that are in the public domain.
There is a cosy cartel.
That is wrong. Does the Taoiseach consider that what has happened is right? Does he consider the practice to be correct and proper?
Deputy Martin does not stand by his own word. He is the person who said that members of his party who were afraid to face the people would not walk away with pay-outs and he did not live up to his word. I am telling Deputy Martin the truth. I do not have the answer to the question he asked. I will not put him or anybody else in a particular position by making a claim that I cannot stand over. What I will stand over is that in the interests-----
The Taoiseach could just make a telephone call to the CEO of Irish Water and he would find out very quickly. It is in the newspapers already.
I am sorry-----
Please. Deputy Martin should allow the Taoiseach to respond without interruption.
Deputy Martin was not able to do it.
The Taoiseach is quite capable of answering for himself.
Deputy Martin sat on the Government side of the House with people who walked away with substantial bonuses.
The Taoiseach should answer for members of his own party.
Deputy Martin has changed his spots a thousand times. I have already confirmed that Irish Water - Uisce Éireann - will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I have also confirmed that-----
It is a simple question: is it right or wrong?
Is the Taoiseach subject to freedom of information?
Excuse me. The runaway train Deputy Cowen speaks of will end up in the House-----
It will have crashed long before it gets here.
-----because the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will answer parliamentary questions to Deputies on all sides of the House about Irish Water.
Is it right?
Let me confirm for Deputy Martin-----
Is it right?
Is it right that somebody who worked in the public service, who retired and who took his or her lump sum payment and pension should be re-employed in the public service?
Is it?
Does Deputy Martin not know that for many years a system has applied? Are we to change it now? But in the interests of transparency, accountability and-----
The Taoiseach should answer his own question.
Does the Taoiseach think it is right?
The Deputies never listen.
The Taoiseach is asking the questions, not answering them.
Would Members please allow the Taoiseach to conclude? The matter is over time already.
In the interest of public information, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has formally written to the chief executive of Irish Water asking for the information relevant to remuneration, pay and conditions and the question Deputy Martin asked.
What about the recruitment process?
When the information comes back it will be in the interests of the public and the users of the service of Irish Water in the time ahead. I hope we are all on the side of transparency and accountability. That is the position. I cannot answer for all of the people who work in Irish Water.
Is it right or wrong? Yes or no.
Is it acceptable?
The Minister has formally written to the chief executive seeking all of the information relevant to remuneration, pay and conditions. The information will be made public.
It has not been made public.
It will be made public.
Yesterday, I put it to the Taoiseach that citizens with disabilities do not have equality. It is my contention that this State has failed since its inception to provide services that would be afforded to every citizen if this were a real republic. The gap has been filled by charities. I wish to praise the work they do. Since the foundation of the State, however, charities have not been regulated, and that is now doing untold damage - I am sure the Taoiseach would agree - both to the charities and to those citizens who depend on them. Recent scandals such as that surrounding the CRC and now the major question mark over fund-raising by Rehab are causing enormous disquiet. Tá a fhios ag an bpobal nach bhfuil rud ar bith chomh dona leis an saint agus sílim go n-aontaíonn an Taoiseach le sin.
In 2009, Fianna Fáil passed legislation to regulate the charities sector but never implemented the legislative provisions. In February 2012, my colleague Deputy Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, why the Act was not being implemented. In his reply the Minister said it was not practical to proceed with the full implementation of the Act at that time given the financial and staffing resources that would be required. Hence, he said, the implementation of the Act had been deferred. He went on to claim that it was not a fact that charities in Ireland were devoid of oversight. We know that there is not enough oversight. Yesterday, Sinn Féin introduced a Bill that seeks to ensure that all the provisions of the Charities Act 2009 are fully enacted by 31 May 2014, but the Government opposed it.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider that position? We welcome some of the steps taken by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, but all provisions of the Act need to be enacted. Will the Taoiseach support Sinn Féin’s Bill to implement all provisions of the Charities Act 2009 which has been sitting on the Statute Book for the past five years, including the three years of this Government’s term?
We have had discussions and questions here over the past several years about what is different. Since coming into government, many of the political and financial carpets we have lifted have been infested with maggots.
The Government is after putting down some carpets itself.
This Government is in the business of clearing up a legacy of untold proportions. We are now into section 38 and section 39 bodies. I assure the Deputy, the House and the public that, after what is happening in the charities area, the sector will come through to a much safer and a more justifiable, accountable and transparent system. It will be the case that everyone who donates to the charity of their choice can be comfortable in the knowledge that the accounts will be audited and published and the charities regulator will have endorsed charity X or Y as measuring up to criteria set out in the Charities Act 2009. We want a system in which all charities are treated the same, that they be transparent, accountable and the public can be comfortable in that the moneys they gave from their hard-earned pay are going for what they were intended. I am sure Deputy Adams supports this too.
This process has started. I commend the members of the Oireachtas committees who have been involved to this point and will, obviously, have a great deal of work ahead of them. This is in everybody’s interest. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has set out that the interim regulator will be in place by Easter and a regulatory board will be established soon after. From a different perspective, the Health Service Executive, HSE, is following through on examining section 38 and section 39 agencies. It is in the public’s interest that all these matters are cleared up. We have had a number of mountains to climb over the past three years. Unfortunately, as we move along, we discover there is more work to be done in several areas.
The charities regulator will be in position by the end of February, a board will be in operation and we will move to a point that section 38 and section 39 organisations will be dealt with. There are many charities that are well run and can put absolutely everything out in front of people. That is the way it should be for them all. That is the way it will be.
Not all the charities fall foul of whatever may be happening with some of them. They all fall foul, however, of the fact there is a lack of public confidence because of the lack of regulation in the sector. We know this lack of regulation across many sectors has been at the core of the toxic culture in this State for a long time.
I asked the Taoiseach a straight question. There is a Charities Act in place since 2009. While the Minister’s recent measures in this regard are welcome, they do not include the full implementation of the legislation. They are only small piecemeal measures, brought about because of an ongoing scandal in the sector.
Will the Taoiseach support the legislation which is now up for reimplementation? As this is above party politics, I am disappointed at his refusal to support our Bill. If the charities legislation were fully implemented, it would protect charities and restore public confidence. I know the Government has been extremely busy but it has had three years during which to act on this. Last night’s revelations by the justice Minister about Rehab, information which he has had for some time, have shocked citizens and reinforced the urgent need to fully implement the Charities Act 2009.
On top of all this disquiet, does the Taoiseach also agree that the refusal, thus far, by the chief executive officer of Rehab to declare her salary, as well as the general lack of transparency about remuneration in this and other sectors, need to be addressed and rectified?
I am sure Deputy Adams is as interested as everyone else that transparency and accountability be had right across the board in respect of all charities. The regulatory authority will be in place by Easter. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform sanctioned the appointment of an interim chief executive officer. That position will be filled by the end of February. One of the early priorities will be the publication of a statutory register of charities, so people will know what is involved. That will obviously have its own implementation to bring about transparency and accountability.
It is piecemeal, however.
For the Deputy’s information, the Charities Act was enacted in February 2009 by the former Administration but no regulator was appointed. When the Charities Bill was published in 2007, the then Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Pat Carey, said:
... the Government is committed to protecting both charitable organisations and the public interest by reforming the law to ensure accountability and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud through the Bill ...
While that was a valid comment, it was clear following the appointment of this Government in 2011 that the full implementation of this Act was not possible, given the financial circumstances that applied.
Look at the mess that has created.
I am telling the Deputy the truth of the matter. Arrangements for the implementation of the Act had to be examined in detail and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has brought forward his proposals on how best to implement them. A consultation process was carried out between the Department of Justice and Equality, the public and the charities sector on the Charities Act last year. The Minister published that report last July. Now, we move on to the section 38 and section 39 organisations. We cannot have a position where unsanctioned pay from the public purse is being paid in such a manner. We will rectify that.
All charities will be subject to the same transparency and accountability. I agree with Deputy Adams that the many people who give selflessly because of their belief or dedication to charities, as well as their service-users, want this matter sorted out. Sorted out it will be.
I paid a private visit to the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, last week. Many of the young professionals working there were distraught at the nauseating spectacle they had seen unfold. For them, and for the people who use the clinic’s services and for those who make charitable contributions to it, and in the public interest, we must clear all of this up. The process is now in train to see that will happen.
Yesterday, I received a distressed call from a constituent, Annie from Ballyfermot, an old age pensioner aged 79, who is in receipt of a widow’s contributory pension. Her husband died in 1977. On Friday, she went to the post office to collect her pension to discover it had been cut off. The reason was that she was subject to a random controlled check by the Department of Social Protection. She was very upset she had to prove again her entitlement to this miserly pension of €12,000 a year while watching recent scandals hitting the TV news every night and in the newspapers. In her view, she has worked, paid her stamp, reared nine children and is, accordingly, entitled to her widow’s contributory pension.
To my mind, this is a story of two worlds. There are those on State pensions who have to prove and reprove their eligibility to their entitlements - prove they are not spongers, criminals or defrauding the State. This is contrasted with those at the top of our society, with an unlimited and boundless sense of entitlement, in the health services and the top of charitable organisations, who have salaries of up to €100,000 a year, ten times the State pension.
Like the leaders' allowances.
This sense of entitlement among the latter means their salaries have to be topped up by raiding funds donated by the public to provide services for people with disabilities and sick children, as well as raiding the shop at Crumlin children’s hospital. Of course, these same individuals also expect hugely inflated pensions when they leave their positions. This sense of entitlement we have seen exposed in the CRC scandal and top-up payments for hospital executives.
They did not lick this sense of entitlement off the stones.
According to Social Justice Ireland, the pay of Ministers increased by €1,500 a week between 1986 and 2011. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Brian Cowen, walked away from the mess in which he had left us with an entitlement to €310,000. In addition to his Deputy's and Minister's payments, he received a lump sum pension payment, a termination lump sum and a termination payment. Of course, he was not the only one to do so.
The Deputy should not forget herself; she should pay back the leader's allowance.
The Government was supposed to change these things. The woman mentioned had her pension cut off while watching these things happen on television every day of the week. It is same old, same old. Does the Taoiseach think this is fair? Does he think it is fair that the people mentioned are still pocketing these pensions? Does he believe the actions of the Department of Social Protection were protecting the most vulnerable in society? Will he ensure the widow's contributory pension of the lady in question is reinstated immediately while the case is being reviewed?
What about people who do not pay their VAT?
I will be very happy to take the details of the pensioner Deputy Joan Collins has mentioned. Someone who has earned a contributory pension has paid for it and it is his or her entitlement. In dealing with the massive expenditure in the Department of Social Protection the people in it have a duty to see to it that the payments made are in order. That is the reason this year it is expected that between 800,000 and 900,000 public service cards will issue. There has been a consistent pattern of scams within the Department, that is, of individuals scamming the Department in which fraud has applied. Because of the changes made by the Minister and the introduction of advanced technology, a stop has been put to a great deal of this, rightly so. I do not know the details of the pensioner mentioned by the Deputy, but if she gives them to me afterwards, I will be happy to follow through on the issue for her. I do not know the reason a contributory pension would be cut off unless there was some reason for it to happen. Even in the case of a random check, it still should have shown up that a contributory pensioner should continue to receive her pension. Consequently, I will be happy to take the details from the Deputy and discuss the matter with the Minister for Social Protection. In general, serious changes have been made in the system of payments to cut out fraud and the abuse of public moneys. This is the right and proper thing to do and the Government will continue to support the Minister in that regard.
I resent that remark in referring to fraud and scams in respect of the woman in question. She is now part of what is called the scam book, about which the Taoiseach was talking, which gives the Minister for Social Protection her reason to have random checks. The facts of the matter are very straightforward. This is a 79 year old woman who spoke to them on the telephone. She was asked whether she had remarried and whether her name was still in the name of her husband. It was obvious that she was still alive and that the box should simply have been ticked to the effect that she was who she had said with was with regard to her pension. However, this was not done; the pension was cut off on Friday and now she has no money. This pertains to a pension of €230 and a fuel allowance of €20. This should never have happened and it never should have been necessary to raise the matter in the Dáil. Moreover, the Taoiseach is still standing over the culture of ex-politicians in the Dáil who still are getting these massive "we are worth it" pensions, with the others. Why does he not introduce a special public sector pension tax on their super pensions? Easy. The universal social charge was brought in and if the Government was willing to do this, it would be tackling these pensions, but it will not. Were it to do so, it would not be taking on people's contracts but would be introducing a tax to deal with the issue. I seek the immediate reinstatement of the pension of the woman concerned, followed by an examination of the issue. At least then the matter could be resolved because this is a genuine case that should never have happened.
In response to the Deputy's first question, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has introduced serious changes to the process in dealing with public representatives, both Oireachtas and non-Oireachtas, as part of the general changes to the public pay scheme.
Brian Cowen, Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan are still getting their pensions.
These changes are in place for everyone to see. I am interested in the case mentioned by the Deputy of the good lady who has been in receipt of a contributory pension for a considerable time. If I understand the Deputy correctly, the lady in question was contacted by the Department to verify that she was still in receipt of her pension. The question is: why, following that intervention, was her pension cut off? This must be and will be found out. She has been entitled to her pension all these years and assuming this is correct, the Deputy should give me the details. She will be aware of cases that have been before the courts - I do not suggest anything is wrong - in which pensions were drawn on other persons' names long after they were deceased. That is not right either and such elements must be and are being rectified. I am sorry for any distress caused to the good lady who has been in receipt of her contributory pension and if the Deputy gives me the details, I will contact the Minister for Social Protection immediately.