Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jul 2015

Vol. 886 No. 4

Leaders' Questions

I am not sure whether the Tánaiste is aware of the many devastating cases that we are hearing about in e-mails and from constituents that are demonstrating the impact on so many families across the country of the cut to the one-parent family allowance that was brought in on 1 July. I received a heart-rending e-mail last week from a woman who has been working since she was 14 years of age. In recent times she has had to move back to her parents' home because of the cuts to rent allowance and her inability to afford rent. Her lowest point was going to the post office recently and realising that her payment had been cut from €150 to €81. She describes the impact of this cut. Of course, there is no increase in her wages. She will require close to €50 to pay for petrol to go to work. She wrote that what the Government has done is to make her feel ashamed and humiliated because she is a lone parent. Perhaps the Tánaiste has heard similar sentiments, because the woman's view was "What does the Tánaiste care? Her aim is to liberate lone parents." The woman wrote that the Government had just set her back years and she was ashamed of it.

Equally, the Labour Party Whip, Deputy Stagg, finds the Tánaiste's cuts indefensible. In an e-mail to his constituents who have contacted him about this matter, he stated that he voted for this in 2012 because he was told that the promised child care system would be in place before the last and most severe of the changes. Then he wrote that there had been angry debate at parliamentary party meetings on the issue and that he simply failed to see how cutting the income of the very people who are making a real effort to improve the lot of their families and themselves helps them in any way to get out of the poverty trap, when it clearly has the opposite effect. He stated that he would continue to press for a reversal of this bad decision. He finally stated that he did not blame the constituents for withdrawing support for the party, but he would continue to try to convince those who are making decisions. Clearly, Deputy Stagg has not convinced the Tánaiste, the person who has made the decision that has caused genuine suffering to many.

I have come across other cases. A 53 year old man earning €200 is now getting no lone parent payment and, because he is self-employed, he gets no family income supplement, FIS.

Charlie McCreevy's dirty dozen.

He has been refused FIS a second time and he has been working since he was 14 years of age. A working woman with a medical condition has been advised by the social welfare office not to work any more and to go on invalidity pension. One self-employed woman is now getting zero payment and has had to close down a child-minding service that she had been operating for ten years in order to get some work outside the home.

The Deputy should put a question.

Is the Tánaiste aware of the deep suffering that many families are now experiencing-----

Has she a heart?

Does she agree with her party Whip, Deputy Stagg, that this is a bad decision, that it will not help people out of the poverty trap and that it is clearly having the opposite effect? Does she agree with Deputy Stagg's assessment of the cuts that she has introduced?

The first point I would make about lone parents is that, notwithstanding very significant spending by the Government of which Deputy Martin was a member during the height of the boom, lone parents' risk of poverty was higher then than it is now. The Fianna Fáil-led Government refused to reform benefits for lone parents. John Downing was on radio in recent times recalling a discussion with one of the former Fianna Fáil Ministers for social protection. Notwithstanding the advice in those days of the OECD and others that lone parents were the people most at risk of poverty in Irish society, and the fact that this was a time when there was a lot of money to spend on social welfare, Fianna Fáil chose not to undertake any kind of reform.

Through a combination of approximately 19 hours per week of work and the family income supplement, FIS, the purpose of this reform, which is in its third year, is to lift the situation for lone parents and bring their income up above €400 per week, depending on the number of children they have and the hourly rate at which they are employed. For a lone parent, for instance, who would only be on one-parent family allowance for himself or herself and one child, that would work out at the moment at an average of about €220 per week. I think most people in the House would agree that is a very low income. However, if a lone parent raises his or her hours to 19 per week at the minimum wage and receives FIS as well, his or her income would rise to over €400 per week. Now, if this House and this society and country are serious-----

Who will mind the children?

The Tánaiste is misleading the House.

-----and, in particular, if Fianna Fáil is serious about addressing-----

What about childminders?

What about the Scandinavian model of child care?

Why are many lone parents-----

-----the very real issues of poverty-----

The Tánaiste is deluding herself.

(Interruptions).

If Fianna Fáil is serious about addressing the very real issues of poverty-----

By making them poorer. Does the Tánaiste believe herself? No one else does, not even her party's Whip.

-----among lone parents-----

Children are going to school impoverished. The Tánaiste is taking money off them.

-----it must actually-----

Deputy Stagg does not-----

The Government is taking money off them.

The Tánaiste has the floor, please.

What did Deputy Stagg say? Deputy Stagg actually said-----

He said that it was a bad decision.

(Interruptions).

-----as recently as this morning in a local media outlet-----

The Tánaiste has him handbagged.

-----that, in fact, the reform was a good reform. Now, second-----

He said that because the Tánaiste gave him a belt of a handbag.

Deputy Stagg said it was too-----

Deputy Stagg got caught telling the truth.

-----in respect of Deputy O'Dea's question about child care, what we did was unique to Ireland.

It certainly was.

We raised the age from five years-----

-----as it is in the UK-----

The Tánaiste promised Scandinavian-type child care.

The Tánaiste is not discussing the details.

-----the North and most of Scandinavia-----

(Interruptions).

-----to seven years to make provision for the child to get settled in primary school in and around first class. What we also did-----

The Government did not raise the age.

Does that solve it all?

-----is that we brought in no requirement to work.

Where is the child care for women?

We established a transitional seven-year period-----

Bring the child to work.

It is scandalous.

The Government would have done that anyway.

The Government is taking money from homeless people and-----

The Tánaiste reduced the age. She should be ashamed of herself.

(Interruptions).

-----so that the requirement to work, similar to any jobseeker, arises only when the child is 14. So, we have actually brought in an extra nine-year transition period-----

People are losing €80 per week.

-----compared to the recommendations of the OECD-----

The Tánaiste cut it.

The Tánaiste should visit Barretstown.

(Interruptions).

If the Deputies are concerned about poverty and lone parents-----

-----they must agree, as Deputy Stagg does-----

He does not agree.

-----that the current system has not worked.

One could say the same about care.

In Fianna Fáil's time-----

Around 1,100 children are sleeping in hotels. The Government took their homes from them.

-----there was €1 billion per year or so-----

(Interruptions).

-----spent on lone parents. It did not lift lone parents out of poverty.

What about illness and jobseeker's benefits?

The Government will put money in politicians' pension pots, though.

That is the question Deputy Martin has to answer. Why was he never, in his long ministerial career in Fianna Fáil-----

By taking money off the parents, is the Tánaiste making that better?

Around 1,100 children are sleeping in hotels.

-----concerned about trying to move lone parents in Irish society-----

The Tánaiste always said that Brian Cowen did not-----

Since this Government came to office, child poverty has doubled.

(Interruptions).

-----to a better and respected place, whereas-----

The Tánaiste does not sound too concerned about lone parents.

Child poverty has doubled in this Government's lifetime.

What Deputy Martin will not do-----

(Interruptions).

What Deputy Martin seems to want to do is-----

Has the Tánaiste not met any lone parent who told her about this problem? We have.

-----avoid the issue of lifting lone parents out of poverty.

We did not show our concern by cutting the rate by €80.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this is scandalous.

I want to lift lone parents out of poverty.

(Interruptions).

I am sorry, but could we have order, please?

Should they bring their kids to work? Should they have them work as well?

Could the person in possession please be allowed to speak? I call Deputy Martin to ask a supplementary question.

The Tánaiste shows her concern by cutting their money.

I will give the Tánaiste a bit of advice. This kind of political grandstanding has no impact-----

Is there none coming from that side of the House?

-----or does not seek to persuade the people whom I identified this morning. It does not convince the woman who wrote to SPARK, for example, who is down €70 per week. She said she did not want to go into the figures because she would get a lump in her throat, and that she dreaded the thought of winter. All of the letters and e-mails that we are getting are saying that people cannot afford child care.

That woman is less likely to be employed.

One woman said that she must now tell her child to stay indoors until 1 p.m. when she returned. The Tánaiste promised a Scandinavian-type child care provision-----

And she gave us a scandalous one.

-----which never happened.

They will have it.

It never happened.

The Government has done nothing about child care.

(Interruptions).

The Tánaiste is surrounded by Tories.

Another person said, "The future is very bleak for me and my gem of a 12 year old." The Tánaiste can do all of the grandstanding and political stuff that she does and quote figures that were wrong because that is what she wants to do.

No, I did not.

They were wrong.

Deputy Martin's figures are wrong.

She wants to go down the route of cuts. I will not go down there. It is just too----

Deputy Martin's figures are wrong.

The Tánaiste is convincing no one.

Deputy Martin has the floor.

The Tánaiste's greatest mistake was to quote the wrong statistics. This message is not coming from me, but from people who were incensed by her performance on this issue last week. They are fed up of trying to play figure against figure. The policy is not working. In 2012, more than 60% of lone parents were at least in part-time employment. The figure in 2014 was 36%.

That figure is wrong.

The policy is not working. The bottom line-----

Deputy Martin's figure is wrong.

Are the parents making it up?

Are they lying?

Deputy Stagg, Labour's Whip, does not agree with the Tánaiste. That is in black and white in his letter to his constituent.

He was handbagged by the Tánaiste.

Deputy Stagg wrote, "I simply fail to see how cutting the income of the very ones who are making a real effort to improve the lot of their families and themselves help them in some way to get out of the poverty trap. It clearly has the opposite effect. I will continue to press for a reversal of this bad decision."

Can the Tánaiste answer that?

(Interruptions).

It is a pity that Deputy Stagg did nothing about it.

He even wrote that he understood fully why this constituent would never vote for the party again. That is what he wrote in his e-mail.

A question, please.

Deputy Stagg wrote that he would continue trying to convince the Tánaiste-----

And now she claims that he supports it.

-----who was wrong, to reverse the bad decision.

How is that going, Emmet?

A Deputy

The Tánaiste is wrong.

The lone parents and children who are suffering do not give a damn about Joan Burton having a cut off Micheál Martin. To them, that sums up the detachment from politics of those in government. What they really want to hear is who will bridge the gap for them-----

-----who will pay to enable them to get their children to school next September and who will enable them to get petrol to get to work in order to provide funding for child care.

Not you. You did nothing for decades.

Sorry, but I am not worried. They do not really-----

You turned your back on them for years.

He is Mother Teresa now.

(Interruptions).

Be quiet, please, Deputies.

They are not into the argy bargy of politics. It is meaningless to them.

(Interruptions).

That type of stuff the Tánaiste is going on with is meaningless to them.

Thank you, Deputy.

What they really want to hear is whether there is any glimmer of hope that the Tánaiste will see the light and accept that this measure, which she introduced on 1 July, is having a devastating impact on a significant number of lone parents and their children.

Thank you, but I must call the Tánaiste.

Will the Tánaiste do something to change this? Everyone in the House is saying it, but she refuses to be convinced. Even her own party is saying it.

I suggest that Deputy Martin, when he has the time, looks at some of the figures he has just read out in the House here about the numbers of lone parents in work, because his figures are wrong. I will provide Deputy Martin with the updated figures-----

What about the weekly losses?

-----and with the recent figures according to the SILC. His figures are just plain wrong.

Did Deputy Stagg write to someone who did not exist?

These people are imaginary.

(Interruptions).

We could actually have a better debate if Deputy Martin came in here with some knowledge of the situation on the ground.

We have had the knowledge for years.

That would be a new departure.

I am on the ground. The Tánaiste is not. That is the problem with her.

Secondly, can I just say this to the Deputy? For instance, the back to work family dividend, which we introduced in the budget, has now had 2,500 people - families - apply for it-----

It does not compensate for the losses.

-----and another 500-----

Is the Tánaiste boasting about that?

For a family with two children-----

The Tánaiste has no feelings.

-----that is worth €60 per week.

There has been a deduction already.

It is specifically designed to help, including people who are self-employed, by the way, but Deputy Martin has obviously never heard of it. He referred to two self-employed people there. The back to work family dividend is actually available for self-employed people.

I am not making up this. These are the very people who-----

FIS is not available to them.

I am going on the cases the Deputy raised.

FIS is not available to them.

The Tánaiste has the floor. Deputy Martin asked a question.

The Tánaiste is trying to mislead the House.

Can I ask Deputy Martin, as a responsible politician, to give us the actual details of the people involved? The approach by the social welfare offices----

Deputy Stagg has their details.

-----around the country is to meet people-----

Cop yourself on, Tánaiste.

Stop trying to mislead the House.

(Interruptions).

-----on a one-to-one-----

Someone said she communicated with the Tánaiste but did not hear a dicky bird back.

Please, Deputy, the Tánaiste is replying.

People have said they have gone to the Tánaiste. They have listened to her.

They are actually helping people on a one-to-one basis-----

They would do that anyway without the change.

They cannot be found.

-----to get back to education, to get back to training, to get employment and, if they need extra hours, to get-----

(Interruptions).

-----extra hours from their employers.

They did not need it changed.

Also in the budget and at the time of the budget-----

They did not need this to be changed.

They get a few extra hours.

-----we had a series of initiatives under way-----

Someone send for the Minister, Deputy Kelly, quickly.

What about those on zero-hour contracts? Some chance.

-----that will significantly improve, I hope, the position for all low-paid people, including-----

Well, I am awaiting the report of the Low Pay Commission-----

We are sick waiting.

What about the parents?

Parents have been waiting for an answer.

-----something that Fianna Fáil never did.

How can a family survive on €80 per week less?

Fianna Fáil cut the minimum wage.

How can a family that is losing €80 a week be better off?

It cut the weekly income-----

The Tánaiste needs to answer that. How can they be better off after losing €80 a week?

-----of lone parents by €16.40 a week.

Freagair an cheist.

And the blind.

Have working single parents' payments been reduced, or have they not? There will be a reduction of €1,000 in their incomes.

Fianna Fáil also cut the minimum wage by €1 an hour. Lone parents in Fianna Fáil's time-----

They were better off than they are now.

They were far better off.

-----of the kind that Deputy Stagg is talking about lost €16 a week.

The income disregard is down. The Tánaiste is pathetic.

Fianna Fáil put them into poverty.

If they were working 15 hours a week-----

The Tánaiste finds poverty funny.

-----they actually lost a further €15.

This is cold comfort to people who are losing €80 a week.

They were actually down €30 a week.

The Tánaiste needs to answer the question. Are working single parents' payments down? A "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice.

Will more people go to work? How is the gap going to be bridged?

That is the Deputies' legacy. They do not seem to remember it.

Could we have order, please? I call Deputy Tóibín.

They will never change.

They are pretending not to remember.

Order, please. I have called Deputy Tóibín.

Where are the socialists to fill the gap?

You have some records, lads.

The Tánaiste needs to forget about the politics, but she cannot do so.

We have moved on to the next question.

You have some records.

You are some fake.

Deputy Stagg is absolutely right when he disagrees with the Tánaiste's argument that cutting the incomes of lone parents will get them out of the poverty trap. The two-faced aspect of his actions is that he is expressing such views locally while voting the other way in the Dáil.

Even worse, he is whipping all the other Labour Party Deputies to make this deep cut in the incomes of people who are in poverty.

The handbag is more powerful than the whip.

Duplicity is also at the heart of the Clerys debacle. Almost a month has passed since the staff and concession holders of Clerys were turfed out onto the street by liquidators. All they have received from the Labour Party so far is a two-faced response. The Tánaiste and her Government colleagues have described the actions of the new employers as absolutely despicable, insensitive and appalling. The Tánaiste borrowed a phrase from the failed Labour Party leader in England, Ed Miliband, when she said that these actions represented predatory capitalism. Her comments stand in contrast with what the other face of the Labour Party, the Minister of State for inertia, Deputy Nash, said when he published his report on the liquidation of Clerys earlier this week. Even though the report in question provides a textbook analysis of a tactical insolvency delivered with merciless precision, astoundingly the Minister of State has said there is nothing to see here. Shockingly, he has also said there are no deficiencies at all in the legislative framework. If the State is on the hook for millions of euro with regard to the redundancies of workers who have been treated in a despicable manner, how in God's name can anybody accept that there are no deficiencies in the legislative framework in this State? The truth is that the legislation in this State, under the stewardship of this Government, incentivises ruthless employers to go down the route of separating out companies so they can use tactical insolvency to insulate themselves from their responsibilities to this State and to their workers. The Tánaiste's approach of talking tough while doing nothing is tactical deception on her part. The strong words she used yesterday contrast sharply with the inertia of the Minister of State. There is a disagreement here. Who is right? Is everything fine and dandy with regard to legislation, or will the Government legislate to resolve this case?

I have had the opportunity to meet a number of the Clerys workers, many of whom were there for 40 years or more. I want to say formally on the record of the Dáil that I thank SIPTU for making its premises available to facilitate the Department of Social Protection going in and giving very extensive help and assistance to workers in relation to their entitlements. The people who come first at the moment are the workers. They should get those redundancy and insolvency entitlements which are their right in law as soon as possible. If the Deputy is suggesting we should use legislation in some way to up-end their entitlements under current legislation-----

Nobody is making that suggestion.

-----I suggest he is advocating such a tactic not out of a lack of concern for the workers but possibly out of a lack of experience of dealing with the issues that arise in legislation from the Clerys case.

Nobody on the planet has made that suggestion.

The workers in this case come first. In conjunction with the staff of the Departments of Social Protection and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, and I have put together-----

Tea and sympathy.

-----a service for the Clerys workers that will enable them to access their entitlements regardless of the broader legal issues. Some very broad and deep legal issues are arising from the manner in which this insolvency was structured. I refer to the group structure of companies. The Deputy needs to be very careful with what he is suggesting. The use of group structures by companies in Ireland goes back practically forever - certainly back to the 1940s - in company law. There is nothing improper in having a group structure, but there is everything wrong - just as there is with tax avoidance, particularly aggressive tax avoidance - in manufacturing a situation which results in a company in the group apparently achieving a very significant price for the property part of the group, while leaving the operational side of the group, which employs the workers and the concessionaires, bereft and insolvent of funds. It is a very clever and aggressive scheme of company law planning. We have ways of addressing those issues in tax law. A number of issues are being addressed by the Revenue Commissioners at the moment. I want to make it clear that this process will have at least two parts. The message I want to send to people who have been working and giving great service in Clerys over many decades is that their redundancy payments, which are funded through the social insurance that has been willingly paid by them and by everyone else in this country, are secure. Unfortunately, these payments will be made at a minimum rate and not at the rate they might have got if the company had reached an agreement with the workers, which would have been right and proper in this case. I do not want the Deputy to sow doubts in people's minds that their payments are not secure.

Nobody is sowing doubts.

To be honest, the Deputy has been throwing a lot of stuff around like snuff at a wake. The important and significant report that has been put together by the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, sets out in clinical detail the sequence of the history of the events that happened. It also sets out how and where company law operates in Ireland at the moment. We will have a very detailed examination of company law and of what actions may be taken to ensure we address this situation. First of all, we have to look after the workers. That should be the Deputy's concern.

This has been happening over and over again.

The State is getting-----

The Deputy needs to give us the "over and over again".

La Senza and Vita Cortex.

Multiple companies in this country have separated out their firms-----

-----in an effort to insulate their investments from the responsibilities they have to their staff. The fact is that both the State and the workers are getting stuffed over and over again. We have complete inertia from the Labour Party with regard to its response. If I have to paint it out clearly and simply for the Tánaiste again, I will do so. A number of purchases in 2012 and 2015 have been about maximising property profits and minimising responsibility to employees. Gordon Brothers walked away from the sale of Clerys with approximately €15 million. Natrium has bought a prime development opportunity worth multiples of what it has invested. The Minister of State, Deputy Nash, has said he is satisfied that Gordon Brothers and Natrium are not required under company law to cough up with regard to employees' entitlements. Is the Tánaiste satisfied that they are not forced to do so? If we do not resolve this through legislation, we will be back here in six months talking about another firm. It is clear that there is a flaw in the existing framework. The question is whether the Labour Party will challenge that flaw.

Will the Labour Party fix that flaw? For our part, Sinn Féin has already tabled legislation on this issue, but it has not received the support of the Labour Party.

We are told that this matter has been referred to the Company Law Review Group. This group last met in February and the items it has been asked to consider do not include a review of section 224 of the Companies Act 2014 or tactical insolvencies. The fact that it has not been asked to do this yet is alarming. Such situations are happening repeatedly, and in large numbers, but this practice is not being challenged. The Minister of State says in his report that section 224 imposes a duty on directors in respect of company employees. What is the specific provision in that section and where is the precedent? When will the Company Law Review Group meet to discuss the legal issues arising from the Clerys situation? When will it be charged with reviewing the existing company law framework, or are we to have another example of duplicity with strong robust rhetoric from the Government but nothing being done?

I would be grateful if the Deputy would give us the data on the multiple cases to which he refers. To my knowledge, what happened in Clerys and the way the company behaved in such a predatory fashion to workers is, thankfully, rather unusual among Irish companies and employers.

Many companies split into different companies.

The Deputy should send me the details. He said there were multiple examples. I know of a couple of examples but the Deputy has spoken about multiples. I do not know what that means to the Deputy, but it sounds like many cases to me.

Is not one too many?

I would like to have the details of the many cases.

The liquidators in this case have been appointed and I understand they met on 8 July. As the Deputy knows, there will be a committee to deal with the liquidation. When the liquidation gets under way, at that point the liquidators will have identified the due entitlements of the workers under redundancy and insolvency legislation, which all of us as taxpayers in the State will pick up through our contributions to PRSI. When that arises-----

Can the Tánaiste not prevent that?

At that point the Department of Social Protection will do a couple of things. First, it will become a preferred creditor because it will be shelling out, on behalf of taxpayers-----

I am asking the Tánaiste to prevent this situation happening. She is cleaning up the problem, not preventing it.

-----the payments for redundancy. As for cleaning up the problem, these are human beings who have lost out after 40 years-----

The Tánaiste's job is to prevent it happening in future.

No, my job as Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection is to ensure those workers get their money, which is fully provided for under current insolvency and redundancy legislation.

And let them get away with it.

That is the first job. The second job, once we have reached that point in the liquidation process, is to seek any legal mechanism we can utilise-----

Introduce legislation. It is very simple.

-----to see what can be done to secure the maximum return to taxpayers. I do not have a complete answer on that at this stage, because we still do not have any reports from the liquidators who have just commenced their work.

The Tánaiste said it is despicable.

Third, of course we will review company law.

She said it is predatory capitalism.

The Minister of State, Deputy Nash, produced a preliminary report on Clerys. He is the first Minister to have done such a thing, and I commend him for it. It is a preliminary report and, as with tax avoidance law, mechanisms will have to be developed to ensure that, notwithstanding that we accept groups of companies, although perhaps Sinn Féin does not accept-----

-----the possibility of that structure-----

It is when they are used to insulate them from responsibilities to workers.

We will then review company law to ensure an occurrence such as this, in so far as possible, is prevented from happening in the future.

The Tánaiste has had five years.

I call Deputy Paul Murphy on behalf of the Technical Group.

Today, a young couple, Alan Murphy and Kelly Gilsenan, are before the High Court. They are not before the court because they committed a heinous crime, but because they are homeless. They are homeless due to the decisions of this Government. The Government has shown the same disregard to people on rent supplement, who are facing massive hikes in rent, as it has shown to lone parents.

Alan suffers from serious epilepsy. He was in a coma in Tallaght Hospital and had to quit his job. Kelly is now his full-time carer. They are two of the nicest people one could meet. Their previous landlord sold their house so they were forced to move out. Like many others, they did everything they could to find somewhere else to live. However, they simply could not find a landlord who would accept rent supplement or a rent they could afford. As no suitable accommodation was offered by South Dublin County Council, like others they were forced to sleep in a tent. They decided to bring the problem to the council's door by sleeping in its offices overnight a couple of weeks ago. The council went to the High Court to seek an injunction to force them out of the offices. Is this what we have come to? Does the Tánaiste stand over a situation where councils are going to the High Court to seek injunctions against homeless people because they do not have sufficient emergency accommodation for them?

Since a court case a week and a half ago, the couple have been sleeping in a tent in Seán Walsh Memorial Park. They have also stayed in emergency accommodation. The conditions in the emergency accommodation are horrific. In the first place they stayed, the entrance was blocked with rubbish, the mattresses were covered in urine and mould was growing on the windows. In the next place, there was vomit and food on the floor and unwashed mattresses. Alan and Kelly are not criminals. They are simply homeless as a result of decisions made not by them but by others. However, they are treated like criminals. Their situation, as Alan described it to me yesterday, is like an open prison, with curfews, no cooking facilities and no individual freedom. They are not alone. There are 3,000 people in a similar situation, 1,000 of whom are children. The Tánaiste is responsible for a significant part of this problem by refusing to increase the rent supplement caps while also refusing to introduce rent controls. Will she now review this decision?

Meanwhile, there is a hole of €18.5 million in Dublin city's budget for homelessness services. Will the Government give a commitment to fill that hole? Will it investigate the conditions in emergency accommodation and commit itself to improving them? Finally, will the Tánaiste take note of the housing activists who have taken matters in their own hands? They have taken over a hostel owned by Dublin City Council on Bolton Street, which was just left there. They have refurbished it and are opening it to house homeless people. If they can do that with no resources and as volunteers, given the hundreds of empty NAMA properties throughout the State and in south Dublin why cannot the State take the same action to provide emergency accommodation and social and affordable housing?

First, with regard to Alan and Kelly, if the Deputy has been advising them as constituents, I strongly suggest that he ask them to get in touch with the community welfare service in the area. That has been the consistent advice to people in housing difficulties. They should go and talk to the community welfare service, which has complete discretion with regard to the amount of rent that may be paid. At this point, there have been well over 1,000 cases dealt with by the community welfare service. A total of 1,200 cases are in the Dublin local authority areas and 700 to 800 are throughout the rest of the country. I am surprised if the Deputy has been dealing with the case, as I would hope he would advise the couple to contact the community welfare service. In addition, in the six months of this year so far, there have been 6,000 renegotiated or new rent supplement tenancies.

The bulk of these are in Dublin. It is not the best option to go homeless. It is much better to deal with the community welfare service to see if a property can be accessed that suits the needs of the individuals in question. As I stated, we have done this in approximately 6,000 cases so far this year, specifically for people under threat of homelessness for the reasons the Deputy outlined. We have done it specifically in approximately 1,200 cases in the Dublin local authorities.

I met recently with representatives of the Simon Community, Threshold and other housing bodies, all of which agree that the protocol is working well. Therefore, I strongly recommend the protocol to Deputy Murphy and Alan and Kelly as a way of perhaps assisting them. I do not know what Alan and Kelly's precise requirements are but given that Alan has been ill, the couple probably needs specific provision.

On the overall provision for homelessness, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, has provided €55.5 million in Exchequer funding for homeless services managed by housing authorities and overseen by the Department.

The local authorities have not received any of that money.

Dublin City Council has a shortfall in funding for homelessness.

The Minister is out of touch.

Some 6,000 families and individuals have been housed through the rent supplement scheme in the first six months of this year. This is a significant number and a further 2,000 protocol arrangements have been reached to prevent homelessness by renegotiating tenancy arrangements for families at risk of losing their homes. This is also significant. The community welfare service is available to assist with cases, as is Threshold and a number of the housing organisations.

The Deputy referred to the local authority, Dublin City Council, closing a premises that could be used for homeless people. The practice by local authorities of closing up and voiding premises that become vacant is wrong, as the Minister has indicated on many occasions.

The local authorities in Tipperary do not have one cent to spend on this and the Minister has not had a single home built in the county.

We have given substantial funding to open up all these voided properties. Significant funding has been provided to open up unfinished estates in different areas, including Tipperary. We need to get every available house and apartment available for people with a housing need.

Where are these available homes?

In the meantime, as Deputy Murphy is aware, the Government has made the largest ever capital funding allocation for a housing programme, including social housing.

The Tánaiste should try telling that to the local authorities.

The Government has made more announcements about housing, house-building, social housing and so forth than any other Government in the history of the State. However, according to the records available from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the number of local authority social houses built under this Government is the lowest in the history of the State. Every single year in this Government's term has seen fewer social houses built than in any other year on record. That is the truth. The Government can make all the housing announcements it wants but building local authority houses to get people off the housing waiting list, including the 8,500 people, Alan and Kelly included, on South Dublin County Council's waiting list, is the only way to fundamentally address the housing crisis. The Government is doing nothing to solve the problem apart from making announcements.

In terms of the case of Alan and Kelly and 3,000 other cases, the Tánaiste's advice is to recommend that people avoid going homeless. We, too, recommend to people that they should not go homeless and people recommend to themselves that they should not go homeless. People do not want to be homeless and they do not end up in homelessness lightly or without having made contact with a community welfare officer and doing everything else they possibly can. However, when a landlord is selling a property, the tenants must move out and many are unable to find somewhere else to go. Alan and Kelly are in contact with South Dublin County Council on a daily basis. They currently have emergency accommodation because other people were cleared off the homeless list, which will now fill up again. The advice they are receiving is not that they will be allocated a house but that they should find a landlord who will take the housing assistance payment. They cannot find any landlords who will take the HAP and they are not the only people in that position.

It is a national problem.

A recent survey published by the Simon Community found that only 12% of available properties were within rent supplement and housing assistance payment limits. Landlords are refusing to take rent supplement or the HAP.

The position is the same in every town and village.

This issue will explode because people like Alan and Kelly and those who opened up the Bolt Hostel are not willing to wait for more announcements and the continued lack of housing to deal with this issue. More and more people will take matters into their own hands. How many more will be injuncted to prevent them from staying in council premises if they bring the issue to their local council's doorsteps, which is where people first interact when they have a housing problem? Other housing activists will take over, open up and bring people into National Asset Management Agency buildings. The crime in this case is that the State is not doing this with empty properties. Despite NAMA having control of 12% of hotels in the State, the Government has not opened these properties to deal with the crisis. It should then build homes to deal with the long-term housing and homelessness crises.

I feel terribly sorry, as I am sure everyone does, for anybody who finds themselves in Alan and Kelly's position consequent to the crash in construction, banking and everything else we have worked to resolve in the past four years. The suggestion I made to Deputy Murphy to help Alan and Kelly, which he carefully avoided answering, was that in cases such as those of Alan and Kelly, whom he indicated had been on rent supplement-----

That scheme is for rent increases.

-----we are helping individuals and families on a case-by-case basis through the community welfare service. Deputy Murphy carefully avoided stating whether he is prepared to-----

The Government has withdrawn community welfare officers.

Organisations such as Threshold and the Simon Community are using the structures of the community welfare service. The Deputy asks for flexibility on rent supplement. The way to do this is on a case-by-case basis through the community welfare service.

That is the good old Irish way - deal with problems on a case-by-case basis.

I am suggesting that the Deputy have another conversation with Alan and Kelly to find out if they have approached the community welfare service. I am not certain from the Deputy's answer if that is the case.

Perhaps the community welfare service could be of assistance.

We bring the information to all the right places in every case.

It would also be helpful if the Deputy would provide the couple's details and we will try to find out to what extent they can be assisted. Many rent supplement payments are being negotiated and I have provided the relevant figures. As I also stated, we have negotiated in 1,200 cases where people were at risk of losing their homes for some of the reasons the Deputy describes. That is a significant number.

The couple lost their home.

The number of homeless families has doubled since Jonathan Corrie died. The Tánaiste should get that into her head.

The reason for that is the decision by the previous Government to stop building social housing. This Government has begun the process of building social housing.

The Tánaiste needs a reality check. She clearly does not deal with many cases of homelessness.

She is on a different planet.

The solution is to build more houses.

That is why the Government has allocated €3.5 billion of funding to this.

It would be helpful if the Deputies in the Opposition whose parties have members on the various local authorities would ask their members to co-operate to get the social housing programme under way, to get voids reopened and to use the substantial amount of funding that has been made available to the local authorities.

If they had the funding, they could do it. They are not getting the funding. This is all a spoof.

Questions and no answers.

Barr
Roinn