Gerry Adams
Ceist:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy last met. [44835/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Micheál Martin
Ceist:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy last met. [46771/14]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when a meeting of the Cabinet committee on social policy was last held. [3363/15]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy last met. [5533/15]
Deputy Higgins sends his apologies. He will not be present for these questions.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform last met on 23 February.
Baineann an fochoiste Rialtais maidir le beartas sóisialta le go leor rudaí. Ní féidir liom é a rá go cinnte, ach sílim go gcuireann sé isteach ar shaol achan duine. Ba mhaith liom labhairt faoi chuid acu go háirithe agus ceisteanna a chur ar an Taoiseach. Tá mé ag caint faoin mobility allowance scheme. The Government closed that scheme and brought an end to the motorised transport grant in February 2013. This had an impact on 5,000 citizens and their families. The Ombudsman had advised that the scheme and the grant were both in breach of the Equal Status Act and the Disability Act as a result of the fact that some citizens, namely, those over 66 years of age, were excluded from them. Instead of changing social policy and the relevant legislation in order to ensure that all affected citizens would be eligible for the scheme and the grant, the Government closed both, thereby actively discriminating against disabled citizens. I remind the Taoiseach that this occurred in February 2013. The then Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, described the Government's decision as a bolt out of the blue and stated that it had given no indication that it intended to scrap the scheme or the grant. At the time in question, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, and his Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, informed an Oireachtas committee that a review group would be established to examine the scheme and the grant and bring them into line with the law.
I mí Feabhra 2013, dúirt an Taoiseach leis an Dáil nach raibh aon rogha ag an Rialtas ach deireadh a chur leis an deontas do dhaoine nua ar an scéim. Dúirt sé go mbeadh an Rialtas ag obair ar scéim nua a bhunú don chéad cheithre mhí eile. Anois, tá dhá bhliain ann in áit an cheithre mhí sin. What is the reason for the delay in respect of this matter? Two years have passed but the Taoiseach originally promised that the position would be resolved in four months. At the time to which I refer, the then Minister for Health-----
I apologise for interrupting but the Deputy is stretching the parameters of the original question quite a bit. The latter relates to when the Cabinet committee on social policy last met. The questions he is now posing relate to a totally separate matter.
Will the Ceann Comhairle advise me on how to proceed?
The Deputy should table a parliamentary question containing exactly the words he is using now. I cannot allow a general debate on when the Cabinet committee on social policy last met.
That is fair enough. The Ceann Comhairle will appreciate, however, that there are hundreds of citizens who are being disadvantaged-----
I appreciate that but-----
-----and the Government stated two years ago that it would resolve this problem in four months. What conclusions have been reached and what decisions have been taken in respect of this issue? When I previously asked the Taoiseach about this matter I was informed that it would be addressed by means of the health (transport support) Bill. That legislation was supposed to be produced a long time ago but it has not yet been published. It is included on the Government's list of proposed legislation but there is no date provided in respect of its publication. The Dáil can sit through the night in order to resolve issues relating to bankers but drags its feet when it comes to legislation for the disabled. I have raised this issue on a consistent basis with the Taoiseach and I am seeking to discover whether the Cabinet committee on social policy has given any consideration to speeding up the process relating to the health (transport support) Bill. Does the Taoiseach have any idea when that Bill will be published?
I already answered the question the Deputy originally tabled. One could ask 1,000 questions in respect of issues of detail and that which he has now posed obviously relates to a serious matter for those affected. The scheme involved was ended for good reason and those who were in receipt of payments continue to be paid. I understand it is expected that a replacement scheme to deal with those who are currently in receipt of payment and those who may be placed in that particular category will be forthcoming. A great deal of work has been done on this matter but it will be after the summer before the new scheme emerges. However, I may be wrong in that regard because I do not have the relevant information in my possession. I will request an update from the Minister and then communicate further with the Deputy in respect of this matter. This is a complex issue and it was necessary to end the scheme because people were being excluded from it. I will advise the House and Deputy Adams further on this matter when I receive an update in respect of it.
It is approximately five months since these questions were originally tabled. It would be useful, therefore, if the Taoiseach could indicate the number of occasions on which the Cabinet committee on social policy met during the past 12 months and when it last met prior to the tabling of these questions. Questions to the Taoiseach only take place once a week now as a result of a decision made by the Government when it came to office. Communities in Dublin and provincial towns throughout the country are faced with the brutal impact of a growing drugs problem. This is one of the many instances where the Government has ignored a problem until it has become a crisis. There is no question that this is now a crisis in many parts of the country. Irrespective of whatever else the Cabinet committee on social policy is doing, it seems to have ignored issues relating to the abuse of drugs in certain communities and to the lack of co-ordination and accountability in terms of providing the relevant services.
One of the key developments in this area in the past was the appointment of a Minister of State who sat at the Cabinet table and who had responsibility for bringing the Departments of Justice and Equality, Health, Education and Skills and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs together in a co-ordinated way in order that they might deal with the drugs issue through the drugs task forces, the RAPID programme, etc. This had an impact and the relevant Minister of State also had responsibility for developing the national drugs strategy and matters of that nature. Why did the Taoiseach not appoint such a Minister of State in the past four years and why has he not afforded this issue priority? Will he indicate whether the Cabinet committee on social policy will be meeting shortly in order to give this matter urgent consideration?
Another key point which springs from my original question relates to the fact that two years ago the Government took the decision to stop producing social impact figures when publishing the budget. In the preceding ten to 15 years, figures relating to the potential social impact of budgetary measures were provided when the budget was published. The objective in this regard was to facilitate transparency in respect of the social impact of the budget. It appears that two years ago the Government ended the practice of supplying the figures to which I refer in a bid to cover up what most objective people and institutions outside this House would agree have been deeply unfair and regressive budgets. The number of children living in poverty is damning and should not be tolerated.
Will the Cabinet committee on social policy meet in advance of the announcement of the spring statement in order to ensure that social impact figures are published? In the context of the spring statement, it seems that for the first time in our history the full might of the public and civil service will be used to draft a political manifesto. The latter will have no status other than as a document designed to win or buy an election. In a typically immodest piece in The Irish Times, the Taoiseach indicated that he will, by means of the spring statement, be setting out a programme for the next five years. Will he provide an assurance that he will supply full information on income distribution as part of the spring statement? Will he also provide the basic information required in order to assess the social impact of what is going to be proposed? After all, the purpose of the Cabinet committee on social policy is to assess that impact. I sat on a Cabinet committee which dealt with social inclusion and which frequently deliberated on issues relating to the proofing of Cabinet decisions.
The Cabinet committee on social policy met three times in 2011, four times in 2012, seven times in 2013 and four times in the first half of 2014. It was then merged with the Cabinet committee on public service reform in September of last year. A further six meetings have taken place since then, four in the second half of 2014 and two so far this year. The latter were held on 26 January and 23 February, respectively.
I am giving consideration to the question of appointing a Minister to deal with drugs but not the appointment of a new Minister. We have already set the number of Ministers. The Minister for Health chairs the oversight forum on drugs which monitors implementation and progress and works to address difficulties that may arise. The Department of Health is preparing a national drugs strategy for the period after 2016 and this process will involve consultations with all sectors and persons involved.
With regard to the figures for the social impact, in the process of preparing the budget to be announced in October we will issue the spring statement by the end of April. That statement will address the general environment of business and taxation, including the environment into which the country will move for the coming period, and set out our views covering several years. Towards the summer there will be engagement with the various sectors of Irish society on the generality of the budget and the submissions made. We will then announce the budget in October.
The European Commission has confirmed that the Irish economy is the fastest growing in the European Union. That is to be welcomed, but the challenge for the Government and the people is to see the effect filter down to every family and person who are asking me why, if we are proceeding at this rate, they are not seeing it. Our challenge is to make this happen. The more people who are working, the better the contribution to each locality and individual.
In regard to the social impact, the first thing the Government did was to reverse the cut in the minimum wage, which affected 300,000 people. This had a social impact in its own way. We have established the low pay commission which has begun its work by holding a range of meetings. I expect it to report to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Gerald Nash, by July and the Government will respond to it in October. We will take into account the impact on employers if the Government makes a decision in that regard. I have also pointed out that owing to the last budget there are now 480,000 people who are exempt from the universal social charge. With the approval of the Minister for Finance and the Government, we hope to bring that figure to 500,000 this year. I am not going to predict the decision of the Cabinet in respect of the budget, but as the figures are analysed in the coming months, it is the Government's intention to reduce the burden of taxation on people. This has had an impact for several years, particularly for those on incomes of between €30,000 and €70,000.
I do not object to Deputy Micheál Martin's question about basic information being provided.
On the social impact.
That will have an impact socially, or deal with the social impact.
It always used to happen.
That is a discussion for the House to have in the run-in to the budget. I do not see any reason the Minister for Finance would not be able to set out for the House the options he must consider in preparing his budget. The same would apply to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. It is something I consider eminently feasible.
I am amazed at the infrequency of meetings of the social policy committee. I would have thought it would be meeting at least on a weekly basis and, frankly, in emergency session when it comes to what, by any standard, is a central matter of special policy, namely, the chronic and daily deteriorating situation in social housing provision. Today representatives from council estates in Dublin, Limerick and Cork complained to the European Commission about the abysmally unhealthy and completely inadequate quality of social housing in council estates in our biggest cities. The Taoiseach has gone out of his way to be the best boy in the European class when it comes to doing what Angela Merkel says, paying back bondholders and doing what the financial markets want him to do, but he is certainly not the best boy in the European class when it comes to the quality of social housing provision in Ireland if the case being pursued by these communities is anything to go by. Should the social policy committee not be meeting to discuss this issue and should the Taoiseach not be ashamed of his Government for its abysmal failure to address the social housing crisis?
There has been a considerable spin put on this issue. Last October the biggest social housing programme in the history of the State was announced. I have since been contacted by my local authority on an almost weekly basis to ask whether there is any additional money for social housing, but there is not one cent. Only 19 council houses will be built in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown next year, even though 1,200 people joined the council's housing list last year, bringing the total to 5,200. In the period since I entered this Dáil, the average waiting time on a council housing list has increased from eight to 15 years. In other words, some people will never get a council house. I am dealing with families who are facing unbelievable situations. One man who was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer has been couch surfing for several weeks. He is an emergency case, but he has no idea when he will be housed. Another woman with two children, one of whom has special needs, has been homeless for the past year. She is moving from couch surfing to emergency accommodation which is not guaranteed from one week to the next. She does not even know where she will sleep tomorrow. She is No. 1 on the priority list, but the council cannot even state when she will be given a council house. Someone who is No. 100 or 150 on the list is looking at a wait of seven or eight years before being housed. Despite all of the announcements made last October, not one extra cent has been provided for the budget for social housing provision. That is just in one county. God knows what the situation is like in the rest of the country.
What is the social policy committee discussing, if not the provision of social housing during the greatest social housing crisis in the modern history of the State? Working class communities are going to the European Court of Justice because of the Government's failure to take this issue seriously. What is the committee doing? Is it going to discuss the social housing crisis and are we going to have real policy change when it comes to dealing with the social housing emergency?
The assertion Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett made at the start of his contribution is typical of him. I have no intention of looking for credit or thanks. People who do so in this business follow a fool's philosophy. My job is not about being best boy in class; it is about dealing with the legacy of an unprecedented mess that was left to be sorted out.
I am proud that the Government has worked with people here and that because of the sacrifices made we are in a better place than we were four years ago. I am proud of the fact that 80,000 to 90,000 new jobs have been created and that we have opened up new markets for Irish companies which are thriving and exporting and creating jobs and contributing to economic expansion. I am also hopeful the recently increased economic confidence which is evident will be harnessed in everybody's interests. I accept that some people will say they hear about 5% growth and a 1.3% rate of interest on borrowings and that we have been able to buy out €18 billion loans from the IMF at cheaper rates but that this does not mean anything to them because they do not see the benefits at the end of the week. It was only in the most recent budget that the Government was in a position to start to reduce the burden of taxation, which we hope to be able to continue.
I am not bound to tell the Deputy what the committee discussed, but at its most recent meeting it considered the progress report on public service reform, the new ICT strategy for the public service to make it more efficient and more responsive to people, the extensive plan brought forward by the Government to address homelessness to deal with a range of unprecedented issues, in Dublin in particular, and the issue of domestic, sexual and gender based violence.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has set out clearly the scale of the Government's decision to deal with social housing and people who have become homeless because of an inability to pay rent, rent increases by landlords or the shortage of housing. The figure of €4 billion, for the period to 2020, is part of his direction to local authorities to allocate a percentage of housing to social housing and the homeless. Allocations of moneys will be made to individual local authorities which will set out and commence implementation of their building programmes to provide quality social housing.
No matter what we do, houses will not be built until we have a process in place that will provide money for building and until planning issues have been dealt with and confirmed in order that competent contractors can move in and start building. A contractor must have a line of finance available in order to be able to build. As the Deputy is aware, in previous years when 100% of funding was put up by the bank, profits were made by builders who then moved to the next build. That is not how the system operates now. Contractors must now provide 40% of the funding and will not receive the type of funding that used to apply. The programme is in place to provide for the provision of social and affordable houses, but the issue is how we can make this happen. I respect the case raised by the Deputy of a person who is facing a number of challenges in this regard and feel sure the Deputy has spoken to the local authority about it. The authority concerned has already been allocated money. Therefore, if the person in question is first on the priority list, it is a matter for the director of services in the local authority to tell the Deputy when a house will be provided.
We are now in a situation where the scale of the problem has been identified. We have allocated a serious amount of public moneys for the next few years and the process must now be put in place to ensure housing will be provided for the homeless and those who are made homeless and to ensure quality social housing is provided all over the country. That is a big challenge for the Government, but I hope we can meet it successfully.
We have spent almost 25 minutes on these four questions on when the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy took place. There are 118 questions altogether to the Taoiseach and the next four or five deal with a Heads of State meeting that took place last October. I urge Members to get through these questions in order that we can move some way down the list. Otherwise, this debate is out of control. We spend far too much time on a limited number of questions. I, therefore, ask Members for their co-operation. I will allow them to ask a quick supplementary question but ask them not to make speeches in order that we can move on to the next questions.
I will be as quick as I can. The Taoiseach was unable to answer my question. He is right to say many questions could have been asked about this social policy issue. Questions could have been asked about social housing and cuts in respite care services or the numbers of home help hours, etc. However, my question was focused on the fact that in 2013 the Government had closed two schemes because it had been advised they were in breach of the Equal Status Act and the Disability Act. As a result, 5,000 citizens with disabilities have been denied supports. This concerns equality proofing, an issue I have been raising since I became a Member of the House. Why has there not been equality proofing? It is now two years since the schemes were closed, but the Taoiseach does not know when the issue will be resolved for the citizens involved.
In his supplementary reply to me the Taoiseach said the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy had met on 23 February, but he subsequently informed me that the sub-committee had been merged with the Cabinet sub-committee on public service reform. Therefore, the questions predate the merger and the Taoiseach should have spoken about the new merged entity in his response. This is important because it involves a relegation of social policy at Cabinet level. In some respects, it is difficult to reconcile the idea that the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy would be included with the Cabinet sub-committee most responsible for the cuts affecting social policy, namely, the sub-committee dealing with public service reform and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
It is clear that the Government lacks a strong social dimension. That the social policy sub-committee has been merged with that on public service reform and that the Government has ended up mixing ICT strategy in the public service with social policy is a mistake. I suggest housing issues should be dealt with separately. The Minister has, for example, made a hames of the issue of rent allowance, which has caused untold misery for families across the country. A properly functioning Cabinet sub-committee on social policy would have alerted the Government and not allowed that to happen. The impact of the decision on rent allowance has been to shove families into appalling and low standard accommodation. If there was a proper social input at Cabinet level, the cut in the number of career guidance hours in schools would not have happened, nor would we have had the discretionary medical cards debacle. I put it to the Taoiseach that social policy deserves to be deal with by a separate Cabinet sub-committee. Is it correct that the meeting on 23 February was a meeting of the merged committees?
My question was also focused on a particular issue.
May I ask a question?
I will call the Deputy in one minute. He has not submitted a question, but the Deputies who are speaking have.
I am a Member of Parliament.
The Deputy should table a question like everybody else.
The Chair asked for supplementary questions and I have something to offer.
The Taoiseach's response to my question does not give me confidence about the urgency with which the sub-committee is dealing with what is probably the most important issue of social policy facing the country, the provision of social housing. We have an unprecedented crisis in social housing and have now exposed a widespread crisis in the quality of existing social housing which is substandard to the point where it is not safe for the huge numbers of families living in it. Will the sub-committee treat this as an emergency issue? Will it show some urgency and acknowledge that social policy is failing disastrously?
The facts speak for themselves. It is getting worse by the minute and there is no sign whatsoever, notwithstanding grandiose announcements that were made nearly six months ago, and nothing is changing on the ground. I want the Taoiseach to say what he is doing about it and what is this committee doing to push up the priority of what is probably the major social crisis facing this country.
The key question for this Parliament to address is social policy and not just social policy but social awareness, social conscience. The hard-hitting concrete items that have been raised by the leaders of the two main Opposition parties and by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, put flesh and blood on the arid statistics. I remind the Taoiseach that the social impact - those are his words - of 100,000 mortgages under stress, of which 40,000 are under extreme distress, represents in the first instance about 250,000 human beings who are Irish people, of which 100,000 are children. Here we are legislating for and having a referendum on children's protection and there are 100,000 children in households under trauma distress. The teachers, doctors and the GPs can talk about this-----
A question, please.
-----and these children are in addition to the 90,000 on the housing waiting list which represents about 220,000 human beings. These are our fellow citizens. These people are traumatised by stress. It underscores-----
Thank you, Deputy. The Taoiseach to reply.
It underscores the necessity for Deputy Michael McGrath's Bill-----
This is not the time for speeches. Please resume your seat, Deputy.
-----and Deputy Penrose's Bill to take away the veto from the banks.
Please resume your seat, Deputy. This is Question Time.
The banking inquiry tomorrow is a farce. On the Order Paper-----
Resume your seat, Deputy, or else I will have to ask you again to leave the House.
Please give me one minute. That will be twice. Is it exit Tuesday for me every Tuesday?
This is Question Time-----
Yes, and I am asking questions-----
----- and it is not for statements. The Taoiseach to reply to the Deputies who have put questions.
I do not know whether it is worth being a Member of this Parliament-----
Put down your questions like everybody else.
-----when one is not a member of a massive majority Government. Will the Taoiseach give me some of his time to expand a little, please? Otherwise it is a farce.
Sit down, please Deputy.
I will.
I normally give Deputy Mathews time in the corridor when I meet him, as he is well aware.
Fired from committees, fired from everything.
In reply to Deputy Martin's question, I have given the dates and the number of meetings that took place. The reason the Cabinet committee on social policy merged with the Cabinet committee on public service reform last September was because it provides a strong cross-departmental co-ordination in a number of areas such as social inclusion, poverty reduction-----
To cut back.
-----service delivery, including having a far greater coherence between the range of Departments dealing with many of-----
That is the Department responsible for cutting medical cards. Medical card probity?
Please, Deputy, we are trying to move on here.
-----those target groups and to support the provision and the implementation of the public service reform agenda which is driven by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. That Cabinet committee has the task of driving the social policy and the public service reform commitments in the programme for Government.
In respect of social policy, the Cabinet committee ensures focus on the fairness objectives and the social policy set out in the Government for National Recovery 2011-2016. It assesses and presents the Government's consideration options or any alternative measures to achieve a better outcome or to address barriers to achieving social policy priorities. It also guides the development and the management of strategies and responses across Departments in the social policy area. It considers the impact of programmes or policy measures on disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, including emerging vulnerable groups, and puts forward different alternatives or new approaches as is necessary. It prioritises service delivery, especially through cross-departmental action so that services and programmes for vulnerable people and groups actually achieve the outcomes set out for them.
On public service reform, the committee supports the development and implementation of the programmes set up by the Minister. It implements the Haddington Road agreement which has resulted in substantial savings and improved productivity. It implements the Civil Service renewal plan which was designed to maximise the performance of the Civil Service while increasing its responsiveness. It progresses the public service reform plan which has seen good progress since 2014.
The social housing strategy to which Deputy Boyd Barrett referred, was published last November. It provides for three things: to provide 35,000 new social housing units over a six-year period at a cost of €3.8 billion, involving about 29,000 jobs in construction-----
There is no sign of them. It is a mirage.
Second, it supports up to 75,000 households through an enhanced private rental sector and third, it sets out a road map to accommodate everyone - 90,000 households on the housing waiting lists - by 2020. The delivery of the strategy is in two phases. The first phase one is a target of 18,000 housing units and 32,000 HAP or RAS units by the end of 2017. The second phase two is a target of 17,000 additional housing units and 43,000 HAP or RAS units by the end of 2020. Deputy Boyd Barrett will note that at least we have identified the scale of the problem and we have put the allocation of money in place to deal with it and we have set out the road map. I advise Deputy Boyd Barrett to go to the chief executive officer of his local authority area-----
They tell us they have no money.
-----and ask them if they have received their allocation from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, in respect of their social housing commitment, when they propose to commence and when they propose to deal with the first priority on the list which is that good lady to whom the Deputy referred.
International Summits
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Asia-Europe meeting, in Milan, Italy, in October 2014. [44903/14]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on meetings he had with other Heads of State and Government during the recent Asia-Europe meeting summit. [44904/14]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on the Asia-Europe meeting he attended in October 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46769/14]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the tenth Asia-Europe meeting, in Milan, Italy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2148/15]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the tenth Asia-Europe summit meeting in Milan, Italy, in October 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7792/15]
With regard to Questions Nos. 5 and 6, the Deputy is not present and he sends his apologies.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, together.
The tenth ASEM summit of Heads of State and Government took place in Milan on 16 and 17 October 2014, on the theme of Responsible Partnership for Sustainable Growth and Security. The format of the summit involved two plenary sessions and a discussion session. I attended and contributed to the first plenary, Promoting Financial and Economic Cooperation through Enhanced Europe-Asia Connectivity. The Minister of State for European Affairs and Data Protection, Deputy Dara Murphy, attended the second plenary and the less formal discussion on my behalf. In total, the Heads of State and Government, or their high-level representatives, of 51 Asian and European countries attended, together with then President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, the then President of the European Commission, José Barroso, and the Secretary General of ASEAN, Le Luong Minh. The summit was hosted by the Italian Prime Minister and chaired by Mr Van Rompuy.
The outcome document of the summit is the Chair’s statement which I have circulated with my reply. The main topics covered in that statement include promoting financial and economic co-operation through enhanced Europe-Asia connectivity; Europe-Asia partnership in addressing global matters in an inter-connected world; promoting co-operation on employment, education, social and cultural issues; regional and international issues; and the future direction of ASEM.
On the margins of the ASEM conference I met with the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Mr. Tn Dng. We discussed the growing links between Ireland and Vietnam and the possibility of forging closer links in the future, including the restarting of the inter-country adoption process; bilateral trade ties, particularly with regard to meat exports; and Ireland’s development aid programme to Vietnam. I also briefed the Prime Minister on Ireland’s economic recovery. I had a brief meeting with the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Loong. We spoke about the important role played by Brother Joe McNally in cultural and education policy in Singapore, as well as economic issues, including investment and growth. I also had the opportunity for an informal conversation with the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Shinzo Abe, during which I recalled our very productive meetings in 2013 and welcomed the imminent re-entry of Irish beef to the Japanese market.
These questions were tabled approximately five months ago. The Ceann Comhairle noted the long time lag between tabling and discussing them. However, the Taoiseach has reduced by half the number of times he must deal with questions. Before his time, questions to the Taoiseach were taken twice a week. Whenever the Taoiseach misses a session because he happens to be missing on a Tuesday, as is sometimes understandable, the session is never rescheduled.
Fundamentally, the Taoiseach will agree that while ASEM summits do not achieve much directly, they provide an opportunity to meet leaders of many other countries. I presume many of the points of significance touched on at the summit will also have been touched on by the recent European Council meeting, on which we will have statements later. The ASEM process is becoming increasingly in-depth as a result of the sectoral sessions for Ministers. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether human rights were discussed at the summit and, if so, what was the consensus on same?
The issue of trade was discussed and was among the principal topics at a number of ministerial meetings. The push for a new trade agreement through the Doha Round appears to be gaining some momentum. Will the Taoiseach comment on that issue? What sense did he get from the summit that there may be a realistic possibility of the Doha Round gaining increased momentum? Where does Ireland stand on such trade negotiations and what are our aspirations in that regard?
There is a growing concern in society about the lack of debate on trade talks at the international and global level. There is a sense that they are being conducted in a manner that is detached from citizens. The proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, between the United States and Europe is one example. Many of the issues being raised may not be fair or accurate in terms of what will or will not happen, particularly regarding the capacity of corporations to have recourse to international law that would trump the law of national states and food issues such as hormones in beef, genetically modified products and so forth. This detachment needs to be removed because there is little connection between much of what is taking place in global and European institutions and the daily lives of citizens in this country and other countries. This is a major issue and I ask the Taoiseach to indicate where he stands on it in the context of the discussions on trade at the ASEM Summit.
Was climate change discussed at the summit? One of the great consequences of the dramatic expansion of Asian economies, particularly the Chinese economy, has been a consequent impact on the quality of life in Asian countries arising from climate change and pollution, including air pollution. I read an article in the International Herald Tribune about an excellent documentary made by a Chinese citizen on the impact of economic expansion on the quality of life in China. Initially, the department of the environment in China welcomed the video and praised its author. My linguistic skills do not extend to pronouncing his name. In any case, the video was a significant event in China, one which is being viewed as part of a China spring in terms of environmental awareness and policy. More than 200 million people accessed the video online, which is an extraordinary number. According to the article, the Chinese authorities then decided to suppress the video. Some people believe there is a struggle under way within the Chinese Communist Party, with environmentalists in the department of the environment and other departments seeking to shift the debate from economic growth to one which considers other issues. Economic growth affects the rest of the world in terms of the climate change agenda and quality of life issues. Did the summit discuss pollution and the relationship between economic growth and climate change?
On a related human rights issue, is it not rather disturbing that, despite the video to which I referred being accessed by more than 200 million people, an instruction was issued to all social media and websites to cease facilitating people wishing to view it? This video clearly shows the impact the rapidly expanding economy is having in terms of quality of life, pollution and environmental issues. This impact is applicable across Asia and was also applicable in the West. We must also take our share of responsibility in terms of the earlier phases of economic growth and development in the West and their consequential impact on the environment.
Deputy Martin raises a number of interesting questions. I agree that answering questions about a meeting that took place last October is not very good, which is the reason I indicated to the party leaders opposite that I would be happy to oblige them if they were to select a Priority Question during questions. If they want an issue dealt with more quickly, perhaps they will discuss it with the Ceann Comhairle.
The system is highly restrictive, including in respect of the questions we can ask the Taoiseach.
Human rights were a major topic of discussion at the summit. Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to protect and promote human rights in accordance with the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights treaties and instruments. They also reaffirmed their willingness to promote further co-operation in ASEM in the field of human rights, including through best practice and sharing experiences.
A discussion took place on the important role of governments, international and national human rights institutions and regional organisations in promoting and protecting human rights. Leaders underlined their commitment to strengthen collaboration to advance the promotion and protection of human rights through the Human Rights Council, particularly the universal periodic review and its special procedures and mechanisms.
Leaders condemned all forms of incitement to hatred and intolerance, including xenophobia, religious hatred and violence. They stressed the importance of respect and understanding for cultural and religious diversity and promoting tolerance, respect, dialogue and co-operation among different cultures, civilizations and peoples. As Deputy Martin is only too well aware, the events taking place in a number of countries do not reflect any of these aspirations.
In respect of trade, from Ireland's point of view, there has been a great deal of activity to establish and strengthen bilateral connections between Ireland and Asia, including the strengthening of trade and investment links. For example, in 2014, there were 12 ministerial visits to Asia and a State visit to China. These visits show our strong commitment to building our links with Asia and many of them had highly beneficial consequences. For example, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, has done great work in enhancing agrifood exports to Asia. This has had many positive results, notably the lifting of the ban on beef exports to Japan and the recent lifting of the ban on sales of Irish beef in China. Food and drink exports to China grew by an estimated 40% last year alone, which gives a clear indication of the considerable potential of the Irish agrifood sector in the Asian region. Last week, I had discussions with a number of companies in the United States which are interested in working with Irish companies to increase exports to Asia.
Our educational links with Asia are becoming stronger every year. Many of our third level institutions are developing partnerships and signing bilateral agreements with a variety of institutions in Asia. More than 150 such bilateral arrangements are in place with Chinese institutions alone. During a visit to China last year, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, secured an agreement that Ireland would be recognised as a country of honour at the Chinese educational expo in October 2016. This provides an opportunity to increase awareness of Irish higher education institutions among the Chinese public. As Deputies are aware, an increasing number of students are travelling to China for full semesters at third level to immerse themselves in what is a difficult language for Europeans to learn and understand.
However, our links are not limited to China alone, as two education missions took place to India last year and memorandums of understanding with the Republic of Korea and Japan were signed in 2013 by the then Minister for Education and Skills.
The Government has established a growing investment relationship with Asia. A key objective of IDA Ireland's Horizon 2020 strategy is to win 20% of new name business in growth markets by 2020. Good progress is being made in meeting this target, with a figure of 18% having being achieved by the end of 2013. Asia plays an important part in meeting that target. Japan is a significant source of foreign direct investment in Ireland. There are now more than 50 Japanese companies with a presence here, of which 22 are IDA Ireland-assisted, making Japan the sixth largest contributor to foreign direct investment, with more than 2,500 people employed in assisted companies. The China-Ireland technology growth capital fund that was launched in January 2014 will target investment in both growing Irish technology companies with strategic ambitions to access the Chinese market and growing Chinese technology companies with strategic ambitions to access the European market through Ireland. Moreover, an increasing number of Indian pharmaceutical firms are developing a presence here, while a number of Indian information and communications technology, ICT, firms also are setting up operations in Ireland and now employ more than 3,000 people. In the other direction, companies such as Kerry Group, CRH and PM Group have a strong presence in India. For example, Kerry Group is an important player in the food ingredients sector which supplies Subway, McDonald's and other catering-related companies.
Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned the international trade agreements, of which the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, is one going the other way. I had discussions on it in America last week and, clearly, it is in Ireland's interests, more than any other European country, to see a conclusion being reached on that agreement. While there are difficulties, I hope it will be substantially completed by the end of the year because it is important that it happen during the lifetime of this Administration or there may be a danger that it might not happen at all. As for what I envisage happening in respect of Asia not waiting for international agreements with the European Union, I note that China is signing up to agreements with a number of individual countries. We had a visit from the then Vice President Xi Jinping and I believe the Ceann Comhairle visited China at a different time. However, there appears to be substantial growing interest in doing business with China from here, as well as there being obvious Chinese interest in Ireland. These are matters that should be pursued.
For the information of the Deputy, the statement that will accompany this reply contains 45 points of agreement or, if one likes, the conclusions of the meeting. Point No. 19 refers to how leaders concurred on the seriousness of the challenge posed by climate change. They agreed that further and immediate ambitious action was required on the part of all parties with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to meet the collective objective of limiting the increase in global average temperature to below 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. In that context, leaders supported and called for the success of the 2014 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, of parties in Lima, as well as the 2015 conference to be held later this year in Paris. Leaders resolved to work towards the adoption at the 21st conference of a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC applicable to all parties. They also underscored their commitment to work together to address the issues of climate change and environmental protection in accordance with all of the principles and provisions of the United Nations on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. There is a range of points that I will circulate with the reply for the information of Members.
It is good that there was a discussion about human rights protections. As the Taoiseach is aware, 60% of the world's population live in Asia where there is massive poverty, inequality, child exploitation, as well as sweatshop wages and appalling conditions for millions of workers. I am interested to ascertain what discussions were held on tackling these issues and what the outcomes were. The Taoiseach has also stated there was a discussion on the impact of Asian economies on global warming. Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are among THE Asian countries that are facing extreme risks from climate change. While it can be seen on our own small island, it is a huge issue in that region. The Taoiseach will recall that last month massive devastation was caused on the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu by one of the most powerful storms ever in that region. I understand the Asian and Pacific Ocean states are planning a major climate change conference to be held in Paris in November or December and that one issue on the clár will be a globally funded insurance pool to aid in the recovery from climate-related weather disasters. Was this issue raised at the Milan conference and what is the Government's attitude to it? Would it look favourably on such a fund to help the region?
The answer to the question is there was quite a deal of discussion about the requirement to promote and protect human rights in accordance with the United Nations Charter. A willingness was expressed by everybody to promote further co-operation through the Asia-Europe Meeting, ASEM, in the field of human rights, including, as I stated, through what is best practice in the sharing of experiences. There was a welcome for the convening of the 13th informal ASEM seminar on human rights which was held in Copenhagen in 2013 and which focused on environmental and human rights. The 14th informal ASEM seminar on human rights took place in Vietnam in November and the 15th seminar will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, in October. The leaders present at the meeting underlined the important roles of governments and international and national human rights institutions in promoting and protecting human rights. They underlined their commitment to strengthen collaboration to advance the promotion and protection of human rights through the Human Rights Council. They emphasised that members of vulnerable groups needed particular attention to enjoy their full human rights. They reaffirmed the important roles of parliaments, civil society and the media in strengthening the foundations of democracy, thereby contributing to the sound basis for sustainable development. In that sense, there was a welcome for the Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership held in Rome in October 2014 and the tenth Asia-Europe People's Forum which was held in Milan. As I stated, there was total condemnation of all issues from xenophobia to religious hatred and violence.
The leaders reiterated their determination to strengthen preparedness and the response to disasters and to build resilience, including through awareness programmes, early warning systems, search, rescue and relief operations and applying innovation, science and technology, as well as reducing vulnerability to and losses caused by disasters. They also stressed the need to build the resilience of the most vulnerable, including women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities, as well as improving the capacities of local communities and societies to adapt to and manage the impact of disasters. There was a welcome for the two ASEM conferences on disaster risk reduction and management held in 2013 and 2014. There was a call for a deepening of co-operation between Europe and Asia on disaster risk reduction and management, while there was an invitation to all ASEM partners to work towards a strengthening of the renewed international framework for disaster risk reduction to be adopted at the third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction to be held this month in Sendai, Japan. There was a call for greater collaboration in dealing with health care for children, women and the elderly, in particular.
In this context, there was a welcome for the ASEM workshop on public health emergency management, which was held in Beijing, China, at the end of 2014. In addition, an initiative is to be held in India next month on non-invasive diagnostic technologies for diabetes and its treatment as a lifestyle disease. All of these things were mentioned and reflected upon, and are included in the statement I circulated to Members. In the not too distant future, they might get a chance to follow through on some of these again.
I am afraid that the time has expired. I thought I might get Deputy Keating in but unfortunately the time caught up with us.
Thank you.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.