Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Dec 2020

Vol. 1002 No. 7

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Deputy Pearse Doherty

As this is the last sitting before the Christmas recess, I will begin by wishing the Ceann Comhairle and all the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas a very happy Christmas. From ushers to staff in the Bills Office, the canteen and everywhere else throughout the complex, they do incredible work and deserve our thanks, particularly at this challenging time. I also wish my colleagues in the Dáil and the Irish people a very peaceful Christmas. While we must remain vigilant to the threat of Covid-19 to protect ourselves, our families, our communities and one another, this Christmas provides us some relief and comfort in what has been a difficult year. Guím Nollaig Shona agus athbhliain faoi mhaise do na Teachtaí uilig.

Unfortunately, Christmas can be a time of much worry for some. Household debt is a problem for many workers and families. Due to Covid-19, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs and many families are now facing their most difficult Christmas in years. The choices facing them are stark. How can they make Christmas special for their families and still pay the bills? Do they buy presents or heat their homes?

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has described this year’s annual appeal as one of the most difficult in its 176-year history in Ireland. Difficulties for some present opportunities for others and there are always those who are ready to take advantage, provided they can. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others have warned about the threat posed this Christmas by licensed moneylenders and the extortionate interest rates they charge. There are an estimated 330,000 customers of moneylenders, with an average loan size of €556. For many in financial difficulty, moneylenders provide an easy line of credit but at a high cost. Licensed moneylenders are permitted by the Government to charge an annual percentage rate, APR, of 187%. That increases to 288% when permitted collection charges are included. The Citizens Information Board has stated that this extortionate level of interest leaves many borrowers unable to pay for life’s essentials and creates a vicious cycle of repeat borrowing. The majority of these borrowers are women; many of them are lone parents.

On 6 December 2018, I introduced the Consumer Credit (Amendment) Bill. It would introduce a statutory cap on the interest that moneylenders can charge. It has passed Second Stage and will be considered by the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach next month in oral hearings as part of the next Stage. It has already received submissions from interested parties.

Ireland is an outlier when it comes to the extortionate interest rates these moneylenders are permitted to charge. Interest rate caps are applied in 21 countries across the EU, including Germany, France and Italy. Many of these caps were introduced because their countries believed that it was morally unjustifiable to charge ultra-high interest rates, especially against the most vulnerable and those least able to repay. Germany described such rates as lacking moral legitimacy. Finland described them as unconscionable. In Ireland, however, anything goes and the sky is the limit. That is not acceptable and should not be tolerated.

A statutory cap on the interest rates that moneylenders can charge is supported by the Social Finance Foundation, the Citizens Information Board, the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, the credit union movement and charities such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Will the Government commit to working with the Opposition on this legislation? Can we see a new dawn in respect of moneylenders and the interest rates they charge? We have legislation that has passed Second Stage in this House and is before a committee. It can be improved on and I am open to suggestions. A cap needs to placed. Let us ensure that this is the last Christmas that moneylenders can charge up to 187% APR.

The Tánaiste

I thank the Deputy. I should mention that there are low-cost loans in place, for example, through credit unions. When I was the Minister for Social Protection, I established the "It Makes Sense" loan, which was a low-cost loan provided through credit unions. People could repay it through their weekly social welfare payments or, as was often the case, the household budgeting service. I am unsure as to whether the scheme still exists, but it was set up with the express purpose of providing access to low-cost loans, especially around Christmas, to people who needed them but would not normally get them from the banks or elsewhere.

I have not had a chance to speak to the Minister for Finance about the Deputy's proposed legislation in a while and I am unsure about what approach to it he wants to take. I do not have an objection to there being a cap on interest rates that were previously described as usury, that is, so high that they should have been illegal. When passing any legislation, however, we must consider the law of unintended consequences. While a law may be passed with a view to capping interest rates, there is a risk of an unintended consequence of creating a new, larger market for moneylenders. This is the type of balance we must get right in any such legislation.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I thank the Tánaiste for his comments on supporting a cap on the interest charged by moneylenders. I acknowledge that Fianna Fáil supported the legislation two years ago, and while the Tánaiste's Government of the time did not, I welcome his remarks now.

We need to deal with this issue. The Bill is under pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. Numerous submissions have been received that address the point the Tánaiste raised, which is a concern we all have about whether the Bill would open a market for illegal moneylenders. I will cite the University College Cork report, which is the expert report in this regard, "However, there is no empirical and undisputed evidence that interest rate restrictions result in an increase in illegal moneylending." It points to how the UK stopped exorbitant pay day loans and this did not result in illegal moneylending. As the Tánaiste acknowledged, there would still be the avenue of the credit union movement.

We need to put some urgency and commitment into this matter. As the legislation's sponsor, I am open to accepting amendments and to its provisions being introduced on a tiered basis, but let us work collectively as a House to ensure that 2021 is the year when the interest rates of moneylenders are capped and we stop accepting that moneylenders can charge customers 187% APR. We know what happens at this time of year. Moneylenders prey on people's vulnerability. The pandemic has exposed that in a greater way. There is a duty on us as legislators to protect individuals from this type of lending activity.

The Tánaiste

I will take the matter up with the Minister for Finance and see what his thinking on it is. There may well not be evidence, but the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean it is not happening. As the Deputy knows, moneylending at extortionate rates happens off the books, which makes it inherently unofficial, and there will not be evidence unless someone comes forward and says it is happening. However, I have an open mind on this matter. It may well be the right thing to do in 2021 to say that no lender can charge an interest rate above a stated amount, but we need to bear in mind that, if we decide to do so in an attempt to put a stop to high interest rates in the official lending market, we could create a new market for moneylenders and make the situation worse. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying, his good intent in this matter and the evidence and advices he has provided.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I wish a happy Christmas to the Ceann Comhairle, his staff and all the staff of the Oireachtas for the incredible efforts they have made this year. I also wish my fellow parliamentarians, both in opposition and in government, the same. In particular, I wish the Government my best wishes on its first Christmas together, although it seemed like Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael spent many together before.

Unfortunately, I want to return to the appointment of Séamus Woulfe. More than 300 documents were released to me and also to The Irish Times last night. The Irish Times reported that the newly appointed Minister for Justice requested the Woulfe appointment be brought to Cabinet on 6 July. By the Minister's account to the Dáil, that is a full five days before she consulted the Government leaders about it between 11 and 14 July, as required by the Cabinet handbook. How is it possible that a memorandum, which I have in my hands, could be commenced early in the morning and signed off at 11.17 a.m. on the day of a Cabinet meeting, five days before the Minister said she consulted the three leaders of the Government? A memorandum for the appointment commenced at 7.45 a.m. and was signed off by the Minister at 9.34 a.m. It was then pulled by the Department of the Taoiseach. The Minister for Justice, therefore, was intending to appoint the Supreme Court justice but she had not disclosed this to the party leaders, according to her own timeline. Her spokesperson, however, told The Irish Times that the Minister had been told it was urgent. Who told her it was urgent? Who tells the Minister for Justice the appointment of a Supreme Court judge is urgent?

In the Dáil, the Minister said a draft memorandum was submitted to her office on 6 July. It was beyond that; it was actually signed off by the Minister and put forward by the Department of Justice to the secretariat of the Cabinet, which is run by the Taoiseach. This was not told to us three weeks ago.

I have a number of questions for the Tánaiste. I appreciate this documentation only emerged last night. On what date did the Tánaiste tell the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, that Séamus Woulfe would make a good judge? Timelines are now becoming critically important. Prior to 6 July, who told the Minister this appointment was urgent? Most importantly, how could a Minister for Justice sign off on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge, Mr. Justice Woulfe, on 6 July and have a speaking note prepared on it when, by her account to the Dáil, she only consulted the three leaders of the Government between 11 and 14 July?

The Tánaiste

I am afraid I am not in position to answer the Deputy's questions. I have not seen these documents. The Deputy said there are 300 of them. I understand none of them relates to me or communications involving me. It is difficult to answer a question about documents I have not seen and which do not contain any communications involving me.

From the documents and what I have read in the newspapers, I understand it was indicated that the appointment might be made at Cabinet on 6 January. In the end, it was not. There were several Cabinet meetings after that. The Minister for Justice had time and, indeed, consulted all party leaders and the Attorney General before making the appointment. The Deputy will know from his time in Cabinet that it is often the case that something is put on the agenda but then not taken or withdrawn for many different reasons.

My understanding is that the Chief Justice had written on several occasions asking that this appointment be made. He felt there was a vacancy in the Supreme Court that needed to be filled. As the outgoing Government, we took a view that we were not going to make that appointment and that it was a matter for the next Government. I might speculate that the source of the urgency was that this was an appointment that the Chief Justice wanted to be made.

In terms of the date, I do not know the exact date but I recall that, in questions that I and the Minister, Deputy McEntee, answered before, we gave the range during the period of dates where we would have had that conversation, which would have been, obviously, after her appointment as Minister for Justice and before that decision was taken to bring that appointment to Cabinet.

Deputy Alan Kelly

I genuinely appreciate the Tánaiste's honesty. I accept that this documentation is not related to him. However, this is a serious issue for the Government and these questions will have to be answered pretty quickly. I have a real issue here. One of the central themes of what the Minister continuously says is that she followed the Cabinet handbook to the letter of the law. If, however, she followed the Cabinet handbook, why, all of a sudden, very early on the morning of 6 July, did she start a process to bring a memorandum to Cabinet to appoint Mr. Justice Woulfe, considering the Cabinet handbook says she must consult the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister, Deputy Ryan? That is a complete contradiction. Second, subsequent to that, after this was pulled by the Taoiseach for some reason we do not know and which we need to know, why was the appointment of a Circuit Court judge added to the Cabinet agenda? Third, why did the previous Minister for Justice and Equality, in the middle of a general election campaign, ask for the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, to meet to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, but went against the advice of his officials who felt there was not an urgency in the appointment of that position and that it would be unusual for Department of Government to make such an appointment?

The Tánaiste

Again, these are questions that do not involve me directly so they are difficult and impossible for me to answer. What I do know is that the memorandum was not taken to the Cabinet meeting on 6 July. It was two or three Cabinet meetings later that the memo was taken. At that point, the Minister for Justice had, of course, spoken to the Attorney General and all the party leaders, and came forward with one name which she recommended to Cabinet. That was agreed by Cabinet unanimously. I know from my experience as a Minister that it is often the case that one tries to get a matter on the Cabinet agenda and somebody comes back, maybe one of one's own officials or the Department of the Taoiseach, and says we are not ready for that, hold it off or carry it over. I do not know what the particular circumstances were in this particular case but I do know that appointment was not made on 6 January. Several Cabinet meetings passed before it was made.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

On behalf of the Social Democrats, I wish the Ceann Comhairle, all Members and all Oireachtas staff a happy and restful Christmas. It has been a rough year for everybody and that includes everybody associated with the Houses of the Oireachtas. Let us hope for better times in 2021.

I raise with the Tánaiste an interview Mr. Paul Reid did on the "This Week" programme last Sunday. He was asked about a contract worth €14 million that the HSE had entered into for ventilators. It seems there were serious problems with that purchase. As I understand it, the ventilators have never been used in a clinical setting. There were quality issues about the ventilators in question. That raises a large number of issues. I fully accept that this was a pressurised period. Everybody was stressed about the situation and there was a rush to get medical equipment. It raises questions, however, about procurement and financial controls, and those are important at any time.

One must wonder how this contract came to be placed. It was placed with a company called Roqu, which had previously only been known for event management and organising festivals in the Middle East. It had a residential apartment address in Dublin city centre and one employee, who was the owner of the company, Mr. Robert Quirke. How much does the Tánaiste know about the awarding of this contract, which resulted in the taxpayer being caught for huge figure of €14 million? What does he know about contacts between the owner of the company, Mr. Quirke, and the HSE? Who contacted whom? Was there any contact regarding this with either the then Minister for Health, the Tánaiste, who was Taoiseach at the time, or anybody else at a political level? How did it come about that contact was made and then the subsequent order was placed? There are serious concerns about this and how it came about. What approvals were required? Were political approvals required for placing that order? I would appreciate if the Tánaiste could answer those questions. We know that a subsidiary of the company in question, another Roqu company, went on to do the testing in County Roscommon and was also involved in developing the health passport app. One wonders how these contracts were awarded to a company with no history and, apparently, no expertise in the health products area.

The Tánaiste

As the Deputy rightly said, that was a pressurised period. There was a rush on to procure personal protective equipment, PPE, and ventilators and we were seeing what was happening around the world with countries short on PPE and staff getting the virus and dying from it in some cases. We also saw what was happening around the world with a shortage of ventilators and what that meant in New York, London and other places. Thankfully we never got to that situation in Ireland. There was a rush on to buy necessary equipment.

When it comes to contracts, procurement and so on, that is done at agency level not at a political level. I do not have any particular recollection of any involvement in any contracts related to ventilators but I would have to check my records on that. At the time, we were getting a lot of offers of help. Deputy Shortall and other Deputies would have got those offers and I would have got them from Deputies. Any time I got those offers I passed them on to the agency. I certainly would not have got involved in discussions over money. Perhaps others did but I do not recollect that happening so I would have to check up on it. Like I said, there was a rush on at the time to get ventilators quickly.

Many of us would have engaged with the major companies. I remember engaging with Medtronic on ventilators because it is a major company in the west of Ireland making ventilators and exporting them. We wanted to make sure that we got our fair share of them for Ireland.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I asked the Tánaiste about the health passport app.

The Tánaiste

What was the question again?

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I asked about the testing that was done in Roscommon and the development of a health passport app. Does the Tánaiste know anything about those contracts or how they came about?

The Tánaiste

I do not but again I would have to check my records from the time.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I appreciate that the Tánaiste may not have been prepared for this but I would appreciate it if he would check the records. I accept that many people made contact offering help and business opportunities. It is important to know where that contact came from, given the background of the company and how it came to pass that such an important order was placed with a company that ostensibly had no expertise in this area whatsoever. I would appreciate it if the Tánaiste would check for contacts, either with himself, with the then Minister or with anybody else, and if he would check how the contract came to be awarded or the order to be placed.

I also want to raise those issues again which have been raised with me by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL. There are serious data protection concerns about the testing project in Roscommon and the development of the health passport app. Both of those projects involved an element of health research that was retaining personal information and it would appear that there is not compliance in relation to data protection. I ask again that the Tánaiste would raise this with the Minister for Health to provide an assurance that everything is above board in this respect. It is hard to know how a company with that kind of background can come in, get projects like this, be approved and be allowed to operate, using this new app that it has developed with question marks over the security and data protection issues associated with it.

The Tánaiste

I will raise this with the Minister for Health. I do not personally recall any contact with that company but as I said at the time, we were inundated with people who were offering to help out. We got some legitimate offers and some quite suspect offers. We even set up a website at the time to which people could submit their offers and so on. I imagine that anything provided to anybody in a political role would have been passed on to the HSE, as the relevant authority for procurement.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

On behalf of myself and the Regional Group, I would like to wish the staff of Leinster House and the Ceann Comhairle a happy Christmas and new year.

Just over a year ago, as a political outsider, I stood outside Leinster House with Hand on Heart campaigners. We delivered thousands of petitions to the Tánaiste's then office as Taoiseach on the funding issues around University Hospital Waterford, most especially the lack of 24-7 cardiac care for the south-east region. The problems in service delivery at University Hospital Waterford predate Covid-19. We continue to have some of the longest waiting lists in the country for all types of services, including: magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, scans; computed tomography, CT, scans; mammograms; endoscopies; ear nose and throat, ENT, treatment; orthopaedics; and ophthalmology.

When we ask the HSE for progress, it delivers us process. I mention the mortuary build of 2015, which the Tánaiste is well aware of. It has taken four calendar years to award a build tender of €5 million for a second cath lab. It is six years into the South/South West hospital group structure and still there is no move on bringing the Kilcreene Orthopaedic Hospital activity into University Hospital Waterford, as promised. It has taken us nine months to re-enact a three-day diagnostic angiogram list on site. We look at the national children's hospital spend of €2 billion. We look at the recent announcement in Cork of €70 million in imminent planning for a second children's hospital. We look at our Dunmore wing, which was completed in April 2018 but had no service budget applied until Covid-19 arrived. The palliative care services there, which were part-funded by Waterford Hospice, only received a grant of funding in recent weeks.

In line with recent trends, the HSE announced 12 new consultant appointment positions for University Hospital Waterford but they are not on www.publicjobs.ie nor have they been approved by the consultant appointments committee. In other words, they are not coming for at least another 12 to 24 months. This is more process with no progress.

The present cardiac services remain the most toxic health issue for the south-east region. The hospital is planning to engage a phased introduction of a seven-day 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. cath lab service. This will basically give us 50% cover per working week. Last year, I spoke about people like Thomas Power, Una McDermott and Thomas Frisby, who could not access the cath lab on a weekend and died. Thomas Frisby's family has three healthcare workers and one of his siblings required access to the cath lab in the past ten days. They asked the question, which I ask of the Tánaiste, when will we see equality in the south east for 24-7 cardiac care?

We have heard major discussion this year on locking down the country to protect life. We have heard major discussion on equality for Ireland and for its people. On behalf of the Government, will the Tánaiste give a commitment to politically deliver increased funding to University Hospital Waterford and to deliver 24-7 cardiac care equality to the south east? We do not want any more reviews, procrastination or process in place of progress.

The Tánaiste

I know this issue has been a contentious one and is a matter of real importance to the people of Waterford and of the south east more broadly and has been for a long time. The programme for Government commits to the provision of a second cath lab in University Hospital Waterford. As set out in the HSE's options appraisal, the preferred option for a second cath lab and associated 12-day ward providing six additional beds, is on the roof of the existing cardiology department in Waterford. I know from working with Government Deputies in the county that the ultimate ambition is to achieve 24-7 primary percutaneous coronary intervention, PCI, cover if that is viable. The second cath lab is a major and significant step towards doing exactly that.

Funding was allocated in the capital plan for the provision of a second cath lab at University Hospital Waterford. Planning permission was received from Waterford City and County Council in January of this year. The disability access certificate was granted in April and the fire certificate was granted in June. Preparation of contract documentation commenced and contractor selection is complete, subject to a cooling-off period. The project went to tender on 30 September. The tender process being used is a two-stage process, which normally takes about four months to complete. Tenders for the main contractor were received on 24 November, while tenders for the mechanical and electrical subcontractors are due on 21 December. The works at the new cath lab are due to commence in the first quarter of the new year. It is expected that it will take about 12 months to build and then it is anticipated that it can be commissioned and opened and operating in the first half of 2022.

Deputy Matt Shanahan

As I said, the Taoiseach said in recent days that this was not a resourcing issue but that this was to do with academic allegiances, reviews and all of that. I am saying to the Tánaiste that this is a political issue. We have six cardiac rescue centres in the country, two of them in Dublin. The only one to serve the 600,000 people of the south east is constrained to a 39-hour working week.

Sometime next year in a phased operation we will get to seven days, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. This is not good enough in the Ireland of 2020. As I said, we are expending huge amounts of resources to try to support people through Covid. The cost of a 24-7 service in UHW is estimated to be in the order of €3 million per annum. I am asking the Tánaiste to set aside reviews, to assuage the concerns of those people who live every night with vulnerability because of underlying issues and to deliver health equality for the south east.

The Tánaiste

As the Deputy will be aware, the trend across the world when it comes to specialty services, such as complex cancer surgery or primary PCI, is to reduce the number of centres in order to have a smaller number of centres with a large number of staff able to sustain a 24-7 rota permanently, and a large patient load to achieve a certain level of standard. The Deputy mentions that there are two centres in Dublin. There were three centres. We went from three centres in Dublin down to two, and those two centres cover a population of probably 2 million people, all the way from the Border with Northern Ireland down to Kilkenny and north Wexford. It is roughly one centre per 1 million people. I appreciate that the Galway and Limerick centres cover a smaller population. Those are always the things that have to be borne in mind.

As I say, the first step to improving cardiac services in Waterford, which we want to do, is to build the second cath lab, which is long overdue. I understand the frustration in this regard. That will be under construction next year. It should be open and up and running the year after, and will allow us to extend the hours of that service, not only for Waterford but for the whole region.