Micheál Martin
Ceist:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied that his Department has maintained its records in accordance with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act 1986. [8923/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Departmental Records
The National Archives Act 1986 places an obligation on Departments of State to preserve records created or received in the course of performing official functions; to seek authorisation from the director of the National Archives prior to the destruction of any of these records; and from among its record holdings, to transfer to the National Archives those records worthy of permanent preservation because of their ongoing value for administrative and historical research purposes when the records are 30 years old in order that they can be made available for public inspection and research use. I am satisfied that there are suitable procedures and facilities in place in my Department for the preservation and archiving of its records and that my Department complies with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act 1986, including as regards the transfer of records that are 30 years old.
Within weeks of entering office, the Taoiseach had begun to engage in a process of playing low partisan politics on the banking issue, particularly the banking inquiry. He came into the House and threw out snide comments that files might have disappeared or been shredded and that nothing could be found. I have since been doing what he perhaps did not do - checking the facts. A freedom of information request established that large numbers of files related to the bank guarantee were in the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Finance. I have a full list of these files, but when confronted with this information, the Taoiseach refused to withdraw his partisan slur. I have taken up this matter with the person legally charged with the maintenance of records, including those of political staff, in the Department of the Taoiseach, namely, the Secretary General. He is a person of high standing whom the Taoiseach promoted and who was a senior official when the bank guarantee had been agreed to. He has confirmed that, as far as he is concerned, the Department is fully in compliance with its legal responsibilities to keep records. The question is whether the Taoiseach is capable of withdrawing his partisan slur. The records are in place and have not been tampered with in any way. The Taoiseach can say there should be more, but he cannot leave on the record of the House his slur that records might have disappeared. He has already done a bit to prejudge the banking inquiry and at the weekend insisted that he did not want to prejudge anything. If this is true, surely he will confirm that, contrary to he said before, there is no evidence that records are missing. I have the correspondence with the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach which confirms that what the Taoiseach said was not true.
I do not engage in low partisan politics. We set up a non-partisan, all-party Oireachtas committee to deal with the banking inquiry. When it starts its work, it will get down to No. 119 and many of the items listed are inconsequential. They were the days leading up to the most momentous economic decision in the history of the State and the records have all been released under freedom of information legislation. I would have expected, at a time when the country was entering into a difficult economic recession, that there would have been regular meetings about the seriousness of the matter, but that was not the case. There is a faxed cover sheet regarding a Iris Oifigiúil notice, No. 87; an Iris Oifigiúil notice regarding the NTMA delegation of functions order; a letter from the Clerk of the Seanad; a memorandum for the Government and a submission slip regarding a memo, No. 79.
These things are available under the Department's system for examination by the Oireachtas committee and I am sure it will go through each of them. There are notes of a telephone call by the Taoiseach with the then British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, points for telephone discussion with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, an e-mail from the Office of the Attorney General including a letter to the Taoiseach, and so on. These are all elements of what is on file. I had expected that when it came to the most serious economic catastrophe that ever befell our country, I would have access to whatever discussions took place with banks or bank officials who were calling in to Government buildings for discussions with the Taoiseach and so on. There is a note of a telephone call between the Secretary General and the general manager of DEPFA Bank.
In that sense, I found that of all the information I read, most of the notes are completely inconsequential. There was one letter of substance, which I think Deputy Martin has in his possession.
Again, the Taoiseach has been and is still being very selective. There are some very consequential documents in this, such as Government memos. There is a full list there - well over 150 at this stage - of documents obtained under the freedom of information provisions, which proves there are records in the Taoiseach's Department.
The Taoiseach said records had been disappeared. He used the word "shredded". That was a slur on the previous Taoiseach. There is no other way of putting it.
I would not cast a slur on the previous Taoiseach.
That is what the Taoiseach did. He should withdraw the term "shredded".
There might be a difficulty trying that.
Deputy Harris obviously has a different view from what he just said. He should withdraw that too. It is not on that the Taoiseach should persist in this -----
Sorry; we have a number of questions to deal with. Question No. 1 has been asked and answered.
There are records, very substantial records, in the Taoiseach's Department and the reply from the Secretary General is very clear. Martin Fraser's letter stated:
As I said in my letter of November 22nd, documentation relating to the bank guarantee is held in this Department. That documentation was listed in the Schedule provided under the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of which I enclose in my letter. I can confirm that this documentation is still retained in this Department and that to the best of my knowledge, the Department is in compliance with its obligations under the National Archives Act.
There was no attempt to disappear any records. There was no attempt to shred any records and the Taoiseach should be man enough to accept that that is the case. He should withdraw his assertion. Will he do that?
Before the Taoiseach responds, the question was to ask the Taoiseach if he was satisfied that his Department had maintained its records in accordance with its legal duties under section 2(2) of the National Archives Act. Has that question been answered fully?
Yes.
Then let us move on. We cannot have a conversation about other documents.
All I did was to ask a supplementary question, but the Ceann Comhairle is shutting down the debate. I have never seen such restricted debate.
We have now spent eight minutes on one question.
Eight minutes, yes. Big deal.
There are other Deputies here and we are too far behind on questions to have a general debate on what records are in the Taoiseach's Department. We are moving on to Question No. 2, in the name of Deputy Adams.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Gerry Adams
Ceist:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy has met since Christmas. [8949/14]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy last met since the Christmas recess. [10470/14]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet sub-Committee on Social Policy has met since January 2014. [26752/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet sub-committee on social policy has met on two occasions since the Christmas recess, on 24 February 2014 and 28 April 2014. It will meet again next Monday.
I have been trying to ascertain what this Cabinet sub-committee on social policy does. It covers a big range of issues that have a direct impact on citizens, but I would like to touch on three of these issues, two in some detail. These concern the cut in respite care and the effect this has had on thousands of families, the crisis in housing, and the mobility allowance scheme and motorised transport grants.
Surely a committee looking at social policy would consider mobility allowance and motorised transport grants. Let me sketch the history of this issue. Last February, the Government scrapped the mobility allowance scheme and the motorised transport grant, affecting 5,000 citizens and their families. The Ombudsman advised that these two schemes were in breach of the Equal Status Act and the Disability Act because some citizens were excluded from them - people who were over 66 years of age. Instead of setting social policy and bringing all of those citizens into the loop so that they could be treated on the basis of equality and be in compliance with the law, the Government scrapped the schemes, actively discriminating instead of fixing the problem.
The Minister explained by saying that if the Government kept the scheme going as it existed, it would be open to everyone over 65 who was defined as having a disability within the Disability Act, and it could not afford that. George Orwell could not have got it better than that: it could be open to everyone over 65 who had a disability. Surely that was what it was supposed to be about. One presumes social policy is about being socially just and fair. I want some idea of what the committee on social policy has done about this issue. When I asked about this last week, the Taoiseach told me it would be addressed through the health (transport support) Bill, but that Bill is not expected to appear before the end of this year. For all of this time, these citizens - people who need mobility support or who are disabled in some way - have been left with no support. We sit up all night to sort out issues for bankers, but surely the Government should be bringing in this legislation quickly. Has the committee given any consideration to speeding up the processes around the health (transport support) Bill, which the Taoiseach says will resolve these problems?
There has been a savage cut of €325, a 19% reduction from the previous rate, in the respite care grant. I know from dealing with these issues on the ground that this has made things dreadfully difficult for families caring for loved ones. There have been other cuts in respite services and home help hours also. We are told that the PRSI yield for the Department of Social Protection is €100 million ahead of projections. This means the Minister has flexibility. I call on the Taoiseach to do the right thing by carers. Return to them the €325 that was taken from them. This would cost €28 million, just one-quarter of the PRSI yield, and it would help 85,000 people who are caring for a relative with a serious illness or disability.
I may get a chance to speak about the issue of housing, but I just want the Taoiseach to deal with those two issues first.
Sorry; the question was about whether the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy had met since Christmas. We are now straying into a whole new area. It is very difficult to be in this Chair and to try to chair matters positively and correctly. I do not mean to cut Deputies off, but the Deputy will understand my position. If he asks whether the committee has met and the answer is "Yes," he cannot start talking about what the committee discussed because, as we know, we cannot discuss what goes on at Cabinet sub-committees. If the Taoiseach wishes to reply, he may, but the Deputy must understand my position.
I realise the constraints on the Chair. As I said to Deputy Adams, the committee met on two occasions and will meet again next week. He may well ask what the committee on social policy does. It ensures there is a focus on the fairness objectives and social policy priorities in the programme for national recovery. It assesses and presents for Government's consideration options or alternative measures to achieve better outcomes or to address barriers to achieving social policy priorities. It also guides the development and the management of a number of cross-departmental strategies and responses in the social policy area, considers the impact of programmes and policy measures on disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, including those groups that are emerging as being vulnerable, and proposes alternative or new approaches as necessary. It prioritises service delivery, especially through cross-departmental and agency action.
As I said last week, the legislation to be introduced will deal with the question of the motorised transport grant. The Deputy may well ask what sort of progress is being made through the social policy committee.
Clearly, the primary weekly social welfare rates have been maintained. We have put in place a really proactive approach to giving people on the live register the opportunity to get into the world of work. No doubt Deputy Adams will be interested in the news from the chief executive of PayPal that 68 people from Dundalk were taken off the live register and are now working in that plant and are participants in confidence-building measures, which is where we need to be.
Which scheme does that come under?
A referendum was held on children's rights, and child protection has been strengthened through the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012. The new Child and Family Agency was established. The national implementation framework and a value for money and policy review of the disability services programme was published. There were discussions about the changes necessary to have an evolving transport scheme. There was a €30 million investment in a new area-based childhood programme, which included €15 million from Atlantic Philanthropies. A school patronage survey was completed in 43 areas and the new junior cycle reform programme was launched. We have increased the time spent on literacy and numeracy skills in all primary schools and developed a new comprehensive action plan on bullying. We have also ended the practice of sending 16 year olds to St. Patrick's Institution. A total of 48,575 applicants were granted certificates of Irish naturalisation at an appropriate and formal ceremony. New supervised community service programmes commenced and a strategic review of penal policy was published. The national positive ageing strategy was published, as was the national carers' strategy. The Pathways to Work programme and the Action Plan for Jobs were launched. We introduced a package of measures to address alcohol misuse, so prevalent in today's newspapers, arising from the report of the substance misuse strategy group. We also published the implementation plan for the State's response to homelessness up to December 2016, a particular problem at present. As I understand it, 154 people were sleeping on the streets of this city on one night last week.
The priorities for the rest of 2014 include advancing the work so that we can have a published report on a strategy for dementia. We will also progress the Children First Bill through the Dáil. We intend to progress the implementation of early actions in the national literacy strategy and advance the development of a new integration strategy. We will publish quarterly reviews on the State's response to homelessness, with particular reference to this city. We will also progress commitments in the programme for Government on school empowerment.
While I am on my feet I should say that I heard Deputy Adams waxing eloquent yesterday morning about the wonders that will come the way of the nation should the people give Sinn Féin the opportunity to govern. I note that while Deputy Adams accepts that working families have shouldered an enormous burden and challenge in the last while, he wants to introduce a new 48% rate of income tax which would bring the top effective rate of tax for PAYE workers to 59% and to 62% for self-employed people. He also proposes to abolish the marginal rate of 41% tax relief on pensions, which would hit thousands of middle-income earners. Teachers, nurses and gardaí earning €40,000 would be hit with an €800 per annum pay cut. He wants to ramp up the inheritance tax so that a son or daughter inheriting a family home in Dundalk or the Louth area worth €300,000 would have to pay approximately €20,000 more in inheritance tax. Deputy Adams also proposes to increase employer's PRSI to 15.75%, which would slap additional labour costs on employers, costing thousands of jobs and inward investment. When Deputy Adams starts to throw around the material, he should be sure to know the pile from whence he is taking it. His own proposals for social policy would have a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of hard-working people all over this country.
I will let Deputy Adams speak again presently but I must call Deputy Joe Higgins first.
I wish to ask a supplementary question, if I may.
A quick question, please, because I must go to Deputy Higgins.
It will take Deputy Adams a long time to answer that.
First, the Taoiseach should not misquote Sinn Féin policy, but if it is a choice between taking carer's allowance from 325 people and taxing those who are earning €100,000, then there is no choice; it is a no-brainer for anybody with any sense of social justice whatsoever. This Government has made the choice to take the mobility allowance from citizens who need help to move about the place. What this Government is doing is a disgrace - it protects the rich, the elites, the bankers and the developers, and it does not look after citizens who are dependent upon the State.
If I am reading it correctly, Sinn Féin policy is to increase income tax to 59% for PAYE workers and 62% for self-employed people.
We make no apologies for that.
I know very few teachers, gardaí or nurses who are earning over €100,000-----
So they will not be affected.
What Deputy Adams wants to implement would force them to take an €800 pay cut on top of all of the challenges they face already.
No; we will not do that.
If that is not the case, then the Deputy needs to spell out an alternative policy to the one he has put forward for the last period.
Why does the Taoiseach not answer my question? I have given him an alternative already.
If I heard the Taoiseach correctly, he said that the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy had met twice since Christmas. Is that correct?
Yes, twice.
If I ask the Taoiseach what happened at those meetings I will be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, so I will ask my question in a different way. What is the point of the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy when the whole thrust of the Government's economic and social policies is anti-social in terms of its effect on working people and poor people as well as middle and lower income earners? The whole thrust of what the Government has done for three years in terms of austerity has had a huge anti-social effect. Those aged under 25, by the way, would laugh at the Taoiseach's assertion that core social welfare payments have not been hit, not to mention those people who are threatened with the loss of their unemployment benefits if they do not take part in forced labour schemes - that is, internships with big businesses for virtually no pay. It is quite incredible.
The Taoiseach told us some time ago that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government was a member of the sub-committee on social policy. How does that square with the same Minister being responsible for heaping extra taxes on people's homes and, if the Government gets away with it - although I am confident that people will stand up and fight - the imposition, according to the Government's figures, of a charge of €580 for the water delivered to their homes? How does that sit with a Cabinet committee on social policy which, one would presume, aims to ensure that the policies emanating from the Government are in the interests of ordinary people in society and not anti-social in their effects, such as those being imposed by members of that same committee as part of the Government?
I thank Deputy Higgins for his comments. I do not think it is in any way anti-social to call people who find themselves on the live register to discussions about what it is that they might like to do, about their ambitions, their competencies and their experience in order to try to give them an opportunity to get into the world of work. As I pointed out to Deputy Adams, more than 60 people in the Dundalk area have come off the live register and are now working with PayPal. They measure up to the standards that are required in terms of their ability to do a very good job. We have seen that happening in so many other areas. People are working not just for companies from abroad that have invested here but also for indigenous companies run by self-employed people, and some are forming their own companies.
I know from his background that Deputy Higgins understands it is important that work is seen to pay and that people are able to reap the rewards of their work.
The old chicken-and-egg situation whereby if one does not have a job, one cannot gain experience and if one does not have experience, one cannot get a job is one of the reasons JobBridge - which came about as a result of discussions between the Department of Social Protection and private enterprise - was introduced. While I have heard about instances where attempts were made to abuse JobBridge, the majority of young graduates with whom I have spoken informed me that they enjoyed the experience of working for a company or a business. Those individuals were either kept on, proceeded to establish businesses themselves or used the experience as a route to move elsewhere. Availing of places on JobBridge was better for them than languishing on the live register with no hope, initiative or motivation in the context of making the contribution which everyone knows they are capable of making. That is important. It must be also remembered that the Tús scheme has given a new sense of pride and initiative to many people who live in small rural areas.
The European Commission and various European agencies produce reports on a regular basis. The best information available, based on the maximum subvention for Irish Water, shows an average charge of €60 per quarter. Obviously, the Deputy will have seen the potential of this in the context of job creation, the provision of proper infrastructure throughout the country and securing our future. We are aware that water is becoming a source of serious contention between the governments of different countries. In light of our geographical location, we have access to large amounts of this previous resource and we must conserve it for our people, businesses, etc., in the best way possible.
Matters have moved in a progressive fashion in recent years. Deputy Higgins is well aware that between 1,000 and 1,200 jobs are being created in the private sector every week. That is very good. These figures are not mere statistics, they relate to young men and women who are being given the opportunity to go to work. We must build on what has been already done in this regard. I welcome the reports which emerged earlier today and which show the beginnings of an increase in house building in the private sector. Clearly, this will not be sufficient to meet our needs.
It is the public sector in which I am interested.
I was coming to that. We have returned to a point where there is a process of direct financing of local authority builds. However, recent reports from the NESC, etc., highlight that this model will not be sustainable into the future. We must find new ways of proceeding. In addition, those in private sector construction must step up to the mark. As Deputy Higgins is well aware, 90,000 houses were built annually during the height of the so-called boom. Last year, just under 9,000 houses were built. That represents an enormous collapse. We need to increase the number again and build 25,000 or 30,000 houses annually for the next number of years. It is hoped that the social housing innovation introduced and the construction stimulus and new planning legislation being brought forward by the Government will facilitate the type of activity required to invigorate the economy so that people will be able to obtain jobs and have a few euro to spend. The latter helps retail businesses in the localities in which developments are taking place.
That to which I refer is of benefit but it is clear that people must be able to feel the change that is taking place, both in their pockets and in their daily lives. This is not happening yet. Things have improved and Dublin has felt the impact of this in a much bigger way than other places. That improvement must be filtered out to the different regions. The Government spent €500 million on extending fibre-optic cable to so many towns and villages in order that those who live there might have access to proper broadband services with sufficient speed to allow them to do their business. There is also the continuation of the stimulus package for bundles of schools, the development at Grangegorman in Dublin and the completion of sections of motorways that were left unfinished and other major projects of that nature.
This is all part of the economic stimulus we need but we clearly have quite a distance to go. However, we have come a long way in three years and the challenges we have faced have been onerous for many people. Obviously, I disagree with Deputy Adams. We want hard-working families to be rewarded for the challenges in question. We also want those on the live register to have the incentive to find new jobs from which they will obtain incomes that will put them in a better place than they have been to date. That is all part of the challenge. Deputy Higgins has a different set of views and priority than those in government. Our priority is to fix the public finances and get the country back to work.
We are all in favour of jobs but the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy does not have responsibility for jobs. There is another sub-committee with responsibility in that regard. Perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify the position but I was of the view that the work of the sub-committee on social policy relates to addressing poverty and social inequality and ensuring that all citizens will have the basic things they need to live a dignified and civilised existence. The evidence clearly points to the fact that both the sub-committee and the Government are failing disastrously in the context of dealing with poverty reduction, social equality and providing for the basic needs of our citizens in order that they might live a dignified and civilised existence. All of the indicators are going in the wrong direction.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to read the recently published and very detailed Steps Towards a Fairer Future: Securing Economic Development, Social Equity and Sustainability by Social Justice Ireland, which states that, from the point of view of social equality and poverty, everything is going in the wrong direction. For example, it indicates that between 2010 and 2011 the at risk of poverty rate increased from 14.7% to 16%, the deprivation rate increased from 22.6% to 24.5% and the rate of consistent poverty increased from 6.3% to 6.9%. The position in respect of housing - the most basic need in order to function within society - was similar and now we have an unprecedented crisis in the areas of homelessness and housing. Matters are worsening on a daily basis. It is possible to have a working poor and, as is the case, massive numbers of people who are unemployed - and to seek to create jobs on that basis - while levels of poverty and inequality continue to increase. That is what is happening. The job of the sub-committee on social policy is to deal with those issues rather than telling us about the creation of 60 new jobs - which we all welcome - in Dundalk.
The question that arises relates to whether we are addressing poverty and inequality and the answer is we are not. The situation has become worse under this Government and the indicators are moving in the wrong direction.
Hear, hear.
Is the sub-committee not failing in its duty? The indicators of squalor and poverty in the 19th and early 20th centuries were lack of access to secure, decent and appropriate housing and clean water, resulting in disease, high infant mortality rates and so forth. That is the direction in which we are currently heading as a result of the fact that the Government is removing the basic and universal right to an affordable and secure roof over one's head and access to clean water. A lack of these basic rights inevitably gives rise to poverty, squalor and social inequality. The Government must refocus its efforts. If the sub-committee is to be taken seriously rather than, as appears to be the case, being seen as mere window-dressing, it must address the issues to which I refer. It is utterly failing to do so at present.
A good old rant there from Deputy Boyd Barrett.
It was not a rant.
It certainly was not.
The Deputy stated that we are all in favour of jobs. Of course we are.
The information provided by the Deputy was evidence based.
Does the Deputy regard someone seeking to regularise the position in Dundalk as being an example of poverty and inequality?
There, people who are on the live register drawing unemployment are encouraged, interviewed and well able to meet the targets set for a major company. They now have permanent jobs and move on from being on the social welfare or social protection list. Deputy Boyd Barrett seems to think this is where they should be left.
What if they are still living in poverty?
Deputy Boyd Barrett seems to think that this is where they should be left.
What if they have jobs but still cannot pay the bills?
I disagree profoundly with Deputy Boyd Barrett on the matter.
Some indigenous companies cannot work with it.
A system applied for donkey's years in the country whereby those on the live register were seen as a list of disillusioned disappointed people who had nothing to offer other than to draw on the taxes of others who paid for them. That has changed now. The new Intreo offices introduced by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, bring about a situation whereby these people are spoken to, their ambitions are talked about and they are motivated and given the incentive and opportunity to have a job. If Deputy Boyd Barrett's philosophy on poverty and inequality is to leave people where they were, that is, on the live register, then I profoundly disagree with him in that sense.
It is called the philosophy of fairness.
The committee published Pathways to Work and the Action Plan for Jobs and this is where the key to future prosperity lies. It is not about languishing on live register lists; it is about being given the opportunity, incentive and motivation to upskill, retrain and move on to where jobs are being created.
Progress has been made. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to the indicators going in the wrong direction. Interest rates have gone down from 15% to 2.69%.
I was talking about social indicators.
How is that in the wrong direction? How is it that today we are rated No. 1 in the world for country humanity, to use a term?
Brilliant. The bond markets love it.
How is it that we have the fastest growth rate in the European Union? Does that impact on people or not?
It is not impacting.
Am I wrong in seeing figures suggesting that every week that passes between 1,000 and 1,200 people, mostly or some of whom are young people who have been out of work, are going back into the world of work? Am I wrong in seeing those figures? Is that not an indicator going in the right direction? I believe that it is.
It is not enough.
I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that we can have a situation whereby the working poor suffer from inequality and poverty but the job of Government is to grow the economy to a point where that disappears and where these people know that they are contributing for their futures and for the economy. It is not possible to do that unless we get them to have the opportunity to have work and not be cast aside, as they were for years, on a disillusioned list of unemployed people and seen as having no contribution to make other than draw the soft money. That has changed. These people want to contribute and be given the opportunity, incentive and motivation actually to do that.
Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the indicators of squalor. They include poor housing and poor water. How does Deputy Boyd Barrett think we will deal with that? We are investing €300 million per year in water services at the moment. It costs €1.2 billion to produce that water and 40% of it is leaking away into the ground. Does Deputy Boyd Barrett think it is fine to leave that the way it is?
Of course I do not.
He never said that.
I do not. We need to provide proper pipework and pristine water for everyone as an indicator of what progress actually is.
It only works if they can pay for it.
We cannot do it without setting up an entity that can borrow off the Government balance sheets to provide the infrastructure and have the facility for everyone.
I agree that this is a problem for everyone. Surely in 2014 we should be able to provide good quality, comfortable, warm and affordable housing for people. As I have said, we went from 90,000 houses to 8,000 houses. Why is it that when Government puts up money for 1,800 boarded-up units in this city, to which families can be allocated, each entire unit has to be scoured out and cleaned out completely, as if starting from afresh, when a good competent contractor could move in and agree to have a given unit in shipshape comfortable, warm, dry condition and affordable for a family? They should not be leaving them for nine or ten months after a unit is renovated and fixed up without awarding them to a family.
They are left for even longer.
This is nonsense. These people should be told in advance that the will get No. 7 or No. 12 or whatever it is. I hear all of these arguments but we have 100,000 people on the live register who have experience in the building and contracting business. These are good competent people. That is where we need to be and it is not only a matter of social housing.
Why does the Government not put them to work building social housing?
NAMA has offered 4,000 units and local authorities have already taken up 2,000 of these. We are now monitoring the progress on the 1,800 units to be fixed. However, we also need the private sector to step up to the mark.
They are not doing it.
They were well able to build 80,000 houses in the so-called boom years and had people buying them over the telephone ten or 12 at a time. Now we need to be able to provide proper, affordable, good quality, warm, comfortable houses for families who need them and that is the focus of Government. This is an indicator of progress as distinct from squalor, as pointed out by Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I put to the Taoiseach that the fact that the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy has met only twice says it all in terms of the lack of urgency in respect of some critical social issues. Will it be meeting shortly to initiate the restoration of the mobility allowance?
The Taoiseach referred to vacant houses and the social housing problem. I know of a young woman with children. They have three weeks to go before they will be evicted because the house is being sold. They cannot rent a house because the rent allowance is not enough or landlords will not take the rent allowance or because the cuts in rent allowance and the limiting of the allowance has rendered it almost irrelevant for many people in these situations. I have seen her genuine anxiety because she will not have a roof to put over her children's heads in three weeks time. That sums it up. There is a lack of hands-on urgency from the Government, the Taoiseach and the social policy sub-committee. It should meet far more often.
There is no point in the Taoiseach coming to the Chamber and shouting to everyone here about vacant houses. What the Government should have done during the past two years is brought in the county and city managers and put it to them that they should change their approach. There are thousands of houses throughout the country vacant and idle. They could be occupied very quickly but this is simply not happening. I pass by them every week. Houses which have not been allocated are boarded up for months and even longer. The social housing issue is a real crisis for many people. The Government has allowed it to get worse and worse without any urgent, hands-on intervention that would significantly change the story for many families.
How many times does the Taoiseach envisage the social policy committee meeting in the latter part of this year? Will its agenda entail the re-establishment of regeneration initiatives throughout the country, especially in areas with significant disadvantage and where in the past good initiatives were undertaken through RAPID programmes and so on?
The entire area of social policy lacks ministerial responsibility now because of the way the Taoiseach restructured the Government. There is no real ministerial responsibility in many communities in terms of regeneration or rooting out the underlying causes of crime as well as a range of other issues, including poor school attendance, better health outcomes and so on. I put it to the Taoiseach that the Cabinet committee on social policy is not meeting often enough and certainly its output is not effective in terms of tackling some of the critical social policy areas that we are dealing with at the moment.
I have read out the list of issues dealt with by the social policy sub-committee, including the discussions that took place about the national ageing strategy, the national carers strategy, the substance misuse strategy group and the question of homelessness and housing. It is very distressing to hear of young mothers, young couples, single people or whoever, especially if children are involved, who have notice to quit their accommodation, inadequate though it might be in the first place, and who must go somewhere where they do not even have an option. I know the pressure that is on in Dublin and the greater Dublin region. It is being exacerbated by population change, rising costs and so on.
It is everywhere, not only in Dublin.
That is why NAMA has offered 4,000 units, although only 2,000 have been taken up. Fully 5,000 homes will be added to the social housing stock his year because the Government has a Minister of State with responsibility for housing. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, is working exceptionally hard right across the spectrum in this area. The position is quite distressing although we have allocated, through public funding, serious money.
The national homeless budget this year will be maintained at €45 million. Can somebody explain to me why we have 154 people sleeping on the streets in this city this week? There are quite a number of agencies dealing with this. They will be in before the social committee, as will the city manager, next Monday. If this is an emergency, why is it that somebody cannot say, "You are sleeping in doorway X here; I have got a bed for you for the night"? I know that there are people with particular personal problems that make it very difficult for this to be achieved, but we should not in 2014 have a situation where 154 people, according to some of the agencies, are sleeping on the streets in this city on a nightly basis when we are allocating €45 million for the purpose of dealing with the homeless. The Deputy can take it from me that I will bring a new focus to this. I am completely unhappy with this situation where I hear constantly that these numbers are increasing on a regular basis.
Now, I do not know all of the details of the different sectors, whether they are because landlords say people have to move out because they are getting better prices for their rent or because of personal circumstances or because it may be psychiatric problems or medical problems or whatever. The fact of the matter is, if these are emergencies, then in 2014 we have to be able to deal with them. I do not see why if, as has happened, even in the-----
The rent allowance changes dealt a killer blow to many families.
Rent allowance is an issue; of course it is. The Deputy had flooding down in his own city in Cork and other places around the country. Emergency responses were had very quickly, but we should not have somebody sleeping in a doorway in this city - 154 of them on any night - in June 2014. I intend to see that this social sub-committee and the agencies for which we are paying €45 million of taxpayers' money respond in kind here and that these are treated as an emergency situation and that we get on with the building of social housing - the NAMA units, the renovation of those boarded-up units and get the private sector to measure up here in terms of what we know it can do in terms of provision of adequate, affordable, warm, comfortable housing for people. This is an issue and it is one that I intend to take very seriously through this sub-committee.
This questions and answers session on the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy has been instructive. It is the stark core on which our discussion should be, particularly with the upcoming October budget. The inequality is measurable. It is not an opinion or impression. Rather, it is data based. I hope the Taoiseach got the chance to read Fr. Peter McVerry's opinion or analysis piece last Friday, the short opening sentences of which outlined the facts. Mr. Wilbur Ross made a profit of €500 million on an investment of €290 million in Bank of Ireland, which was a one-way bet only for profit. I told the Taoiseach before the bank's capitalisation not to sell 35% of half the country's banking infrastructure to a group of people for €1.1 billion. It was unwise.
Regarding how the country's social fabric stands, the Taoiseach mentioned 68 jobs in Dundalk. That is great and we are all in favour of jobs, including Deputy Boyd Barrett, but thousands of families are being pushed to the extreme situation of having their homes possessed by banks. Banks are behaving appallingly and are out of control. They should stop what they are doing.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has provided statistics and called for courage and leadership. Distributive economics have been pointed out in data-based research by Professor Joseph Stiglitz in his book on inequality that I gave to the Taoiseach before Christmas and by Professor Thomas Piketty in his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. They are not celebrity economists. They are serious people who have undertaken data-based research to show the situation without emotion. It is a fact that the distribution of income and wealth in our society has become grossly unequal. The way of dealing with this situation is called social policy. The stock market has been totally recovered since before-----
I am sorry, but we cannot have a debate on the economy now. These are questions on-----
Houses-----
I am sorry, but Deputy Adams is seeking to ask a further supplementary question. I will let Deputy Mathews back in, but he should please ask his question.
I met Mr. Gerhard Schick, deputy chairman of the German finance committee, for an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters on Monday of last week straight after he arrived on his committee's visit. He had a wrong impression of the 1.5 million people of our 4.5 million population whose lives had been turned inside out. Some 250,000 have emigrated, 385,000 are long-term unemployed and 170,000 families are in deep mortgage distress. That is 500,000 people.
I am sorry, but this is Question Time.
I know.
The Deputy must ask a question.
I am asking it.
No, the Deputy is not.
How does this stack up? After I gave the Germans the truthful picture, they told us that we should get a PR firm to tell the German people what the situation was because they had the wrong idea. That is because the senior people who have gone from Ireland to Frankfurt and Brussels have not given a truthful, real-time picture of the situation in this country on many fronts.
I call Deputy Adams.
Please, all I am asking the Taoiseach for is courage and leadership.
I am sorry, but this is Question Time.
I asked a question about the sub-committee on social policy and the Taoiseach kindly spelled out its terms of reference. I will summarise those as examining fairness, options and so on. I gave the Taoiseach three simple options for dealing with homelessness, citizens who had lost their mobility grants and citizens who had lost their carer's respite grants, but he went on a rant and did not deal with my suggestions. I will make another suggestion - appoint Fr. Peter McVerry as Minister for the homeless.
For social policy.
I am sure he would do it for nothing.
He would have to be appointed a Senator first.
One of the problems is that the Taoiseach has been in the Dáil for too long. He stands up and grandstands on these issues, but I have a statement that I want to read to him because it is his. It was made following the National Economic and Social Council, NESC's report on jobless households. As the Taoiseach knows, the NESC works under the aegis of his Department. According to its report, 23% of households are jobless, those being, households in which no one is employed or where the total working time by those able to work amounts to less than 20% of their available working time. This level is higher than the EU average. I commend the Taoiseach's statement. I do not know whether he wrote it, but it was issued. He stated:
If this situation is not addressed it will perpetuate the cycle of joblessness, hopelessness and welfare dependency. The sharp increase in jobless households, from an already high level, will have lasting economic and social consequences for generations to come unless we have specific, targeted solutions.
I agree completely. The social policy committee might bend its will to examining what is fair, namely, to tax those who can pay the most and protect those who need the State's protection. I commend this approach to the Taoiseach.
Hear, hear.
I thank Deputy Adams for those comments. Deputy Mathews uses his long experience in banking-----
I am the Taoiseach's preferred target.
-----to make his point here. I actually had a brief conversation with Fr. McVerry recently. It is my intention to call to him when I get an opportunity to discuss some real facts down there. Obviously, he has done an enormous job over so many years. I suppose I could say that, if Mr. Ross had not made his investment in Bank of Ireland, the taxpayer would have had to pay more in terms of recapitalisation.
Creditor capitalisation. I told the Taoiseach. The euro system should have bailed in.
It is a punt that he made. Obviously, with Deputy Mathews's particular knowledge-----
No, just facts.
----- if he was in the same resource position, he might have done the same thing. I do not know. It is true to say, Deputy, that quite a lot of people have got letters of legal import from banks recently. Obviously, the situation in so far as-----
I know. I am dealing with some of them.
I am sorry, but will the Deputy please allow an answer?
-----mortgages are concerned has improved. As every week goes by, more and more are being brought to a point where there is a sustainable and permanent solution for them.
Has the Taoiseach dealt with any? I have.
Yes.
We have figures from the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and the banks themselves.
Will the Deputy, please, obey the Chair and show some respect?
I apologise.
The idea is that deals were cut with people on the issue of distressed mortgages. I am glad progress has been made, though it is not happening fast enough. We must keep the pressure on. I note that the personnel from the IMF are leaving Ireland, having been based here for the past three years. They say there is a sense of normalisation.
A headline in today's newspaper says we spend €50 million on alcoholic drinks every week. There is an unacceptable level of dependency on alcoholic drink and it is a creator of inequality in Ireland.
Gambling causes such problems too.
I agree with the Deputy that courage and leadership are required. I am taken aback by his comment that those who left Ireland to go to Germany, Brussels and elsewhere have not told the truth about the state of the nation. Their honesty in relating the stark situation is the reason we have succeeded in gaining significant concessions from Brussels and the European Central Bank.
I did not make up what I said. I was told by Mr. Gerhard Schick.
I do not agree with the Deputy that such people have not given a truthful account of the state of the nation.
They think we are doing fine.
I thank Deputy Gerry Adams for his comments on homelessness. A few years ago €50 million for homelessness and a further €30 million for facilities for homeless people would have been thought sufficient to deal with the problem. There are issues relating to homelessness that must be addressed by the sub-committee. The city manager will address the sub-committee shortly, as will different agencies.
The programme for the prevention of homelessness has been agreed between the Department of Social Protection, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, the four Dublin local authorities and Threshold, with the support of the Dublin Simon Community and Focus Ireland. This ensures there will be a speedy response to prevent homelessness, particularly in Dublin, in cases of families with one or more children that are in receipt of rent supplement, as described by Deputy Mathews. Such situations mostly arise when a landlord increases rent beyond the rent supplement limits. The Department staff dealing with this issue will have evidence from Threshold showing temporary rent increases in particular areas and in individual cases. Threshold will make recommendations when it considers that all other avenues have been exhausted for a particular family's housing needs. The Department will consider the recommendations using its discretion under the social welfare code while the local authority and Threshold pursue alternative options on housing. This continues for 13 weeks and may do so for a further 13 weeks.
The suggestions made by the Deputy are worthy of consideration and I will see that they are discussed by the social policy sub-committee. I hope real progress can be made in this area.
There is one minute and fifty seconds remaining.
I was hoping we might get the matters relating to sub-committees of the Cabinet out of the way.
To be honest, the next question on infrastructure is very important and should remain on the agenda until the next day. May I ask a supplementary question on social policy?
Yes.
The Taoiseach has gone on at length decrying the homelessness situation in Dublin and the State. I wondered to myself, "Has this man been in power for the past three years?".
Yes, I have been.
The Taoiseach shows tendencies similar to one of his predecessors, the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I often argued with him across the floor and he suffered regular bouts of amnesia as he described the terrible problems in society to the House. He made no connection between these problems and the fact that he had been in charge for years. Will the Taoiseach please remind himself of his position as leader of this country? It is his responsibility if there is a huge level of homelessness, which there is.
I had hoped we would address the matter of infrastructure, because the biggest infrastructural need is the need for new homes. The Taoiseach spoke a great deal on this topic but in answer to the wrong question. I will now shame the Taoiseach. Is he aware that 6,000 local authority homes were built in 1973 and 8,700 in 1975? He is responsible for the building of only a few hundred. Is it any wonder there is a crisis?
I accept responsibility for what I must do. Some €80 million has been allocated to address homelessness this year. This consists of €50 million, supplemented by a further €30 million for facilities and support for the homeless. Of course we must return to the practice of providing sufficient social housing to meet needs, but a process must be followed. No matter what one does, blocks, concrete, foundations, sites, planning permission and so on must be in place before houses can be built for the people who need them. This is the focus of the Government as part of the stimulus for construction and new planning legislation that is on its way. I do not doubt Deputy Higgins will have very valid comments to make on the legislation when it comes before the House.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.