Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Oct 2022

Vol. 1028 No. 2

Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate

Agriculture Industry

I thank the Minister for taking this matter himself, which I appreciate.

I raise the change in practice in respect of goods that are determined to involve health or agriculture and how they are checked. Until recently, any goods marked for Shannon Airport were checked at Shannon regardless of where they had come into the country or, in fact, where they had come into the European Union, given that the vast majority of those goods would have entered the European Union at Heathrow Airport and then been shipped throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from there. Obviously, as the Minister will be aware, Heathrow is a much bigger airport and a very large proportion of the air freight coming into these islands came into Heathrow and was then brought on to its final destination, which in many cases was Shannon. Those goods were never checked at Heathrow, even though that was the point at which they entered the European Union, but rather at their final destination, such as Shannon. That was all considered to be in order as long as the goods had not been stripped down - that is the term used in the industry - and as long as the pallet was unopened and still wrapped. It was stripped down at Shannon Airport, whatever needed to be inspected was inspected and it then went to its final destination, presumably in the Shannon region, which was why Shannon was chosen as the destination airport in the first instance.

That changed slightly when Britain left the European Union because, obviously, the first point of entry into the European Union was no longer Heathrow. Goods were still coming from Heathrow but the first point of entry in the vast majority of cases was Rosslare Europort or Dublin Port. There is no inspection facility at Rosslare, so the goods would have been sent on to Shannon, with the pallet inspected and stripped down there. As long as the pallet had not been interfered with before it got to Shannon, that was all in order. Similarly, if a pallet came into Dublin and was marked for Shannon, that was not a problem because, ultimately, it was the industry practice and because European Union law states that the border post may be at the point of entry, which implies it is not required to be at the point of entry. The most important question is where there is an inspection point and a customs point, and that is the case for Shannon Airport and Dublin Airport but not, crucially, at Rosslare.

The practice changed suddenly such that goods coming into Dublin on a pallet marked for Shannon would be no longer inspected at Shannon but had to be first inspected in Dublin. Equally problematically, in the case of goods leaving the country from Shannon, where the pallet had been put together, inspected and sealed, went on to Dublin and left the country from Dublin, that was no longer acceptable to the Department either. As far as I can see, although I am open to contradiction, there has been absolutely no change in the legal framework.

The practice has changed but the legal framework has not. Why has the practice changed? It is causing considerable consternation among, I will be honest, a relatively small but an important cohort of people. I refer to major employers who chose to invest a lot of money and employ many people in the mid-west region because of the proximity to Shannon Airport and all that entailed. Of course, it does not just entail their staff and executives being able to fly in and out. It also means goods and having goods inspected by customs and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine at Shannon Airport.

As I mentioned, this has absolutely nothing to do with customs. This is uniquely a problem with inspections by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Could the Minister explain the basis for the change and why this is being done? Why is this being done now if there is no change in the legislation?

For the benefit of the other Deputies who are here for the Topical Issue debate, I will tap the bell when it gets to one minute so they are aware of the time. We are a little bit lost without the clocks.

I am sorry if I went a bit over time.

The Deputy did not. He had a sixth sense. That is what comes with experience.

The Minister has four minutes.

I thank Deputy McNamara for raising this Topical Issue.

The written replies are sometimes provided but if there is not one, that is fine. I am sorry; I did not mean to interrupt.

The written replies are available. Deputy McNamara raised this issue with me previously, as did other Oireachtas Members in the county. I have also been contacted by Deputies Crowe, Carey and Cannon and Senator Dooley on this issue. It is an issue of concern in the local area.

European legislation aimed at the protection of the European Single Market requires that official controls to verify compliance with the requirements of European Union legislation are carried out at a border control post at the point of first arrival into the European Union. As Deputy McNamara will know, this is critical to protecting and upholding the necessary standards we have in the EU.

Prior to the departure of the UK from the European Union, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine operated three multi-commodity border control posts at Dublin Airport, Dublin Port and Shannon Airport. In preparation for the departure of the UK, a fourth multi-commodity border control post was constructed at Rosslare Europort. Each of these border control posts play a critical role in ensuring important standards are maintained.

Border control posts must meet certain infrastructural requirements to be designated by the European Commission to handle the different categories of live animals and animal products. While the border control post at Dublin Airport was being expanded to meet the infrastructural requirements required for the handling of animal products, a temporary arrangement was in place. This saw consignments of animal products landing at Dublin Airport transported to the border control post at Shannon Airport, where the necessary controls were carried out.

The construction of the border control post at Dublin Airport was completed in autumn 2020. It became fully operational in July of this year. Those responsible for the importation of commodities requiring checks at border control posts, so-called operators responsible for consignments, RFC, were informed of this development in writing on 8 July. RFCs were reminded that they are obliged by European legislation to ensure that animals and goods requiring official controls at border control posts are presented for controls at the border control post at the point of first arrival. For consignments landing at Dublin Airport, this is the border control post at Dublin Airport. The operationalisation of the expanded border control point at Dublin Airport brings Ireland into full compliance with the requirements of European Union legislation. In no way does the Dublin Airport border control post have implications for the operation of the border control post at Shannon Airport. The border control post at Shannon Airport remains fully operational and ready to process any consignments landing at Shannon Airport.

A case has been made that the movement of products landing at Dublin Airport by road for checks at Shannon Airport meets the definition of transshipment, as provided for in the relevant EU legislation. I have asked senior officials in my Department to arrange a meeting with those making that case to discuss the issue. I will be happy to share the outcome of that meeting with Deputy McNamara and with Deputies Crowe, Carey and Cannon and Senator Dooley. I thank the committed staff at each of the border control posts for upholding our standards and adapting so quickly to the new post-Brexit scenario.

I am afraid what the Minister just told me differs somewhat from what I heard is happening on the ground. There is a new enlarged border control facility at Dublin Airport. However, there was always a border control facility at Dublin Airport. Items marked for Shannon Airport previously came through Dublin Airport where there was a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine facility. Because they were marked for Shannon, however, they went on to Shannon Airport, even though there was a facility at Dublin Airport, and that was no problem. Stuff that was leaving through Dublin Airport that originated in Shannon was able to be cleared at Shannon Airport. It was wrapped and put on a pallet and it was not interfered with thereafter. That was no problem even though it was going to Dublin and there was a border control post in Dublin Airport. Stuff that was coming in from Heathrow Airport, which was the first point of entry into the European Union, was not checked at Heathrow or at Dublin Port or Rosslare Europort. It went on to Shannon Airport because it was marked for Shannon. All of this happened under the existing law with which the Minister just said his officials are bringing Ireland into compliance.

I will offer the Minister an alternative scenario, which is that a big new facility is being built in Dublin Airport and officialdom now needs to justify the cost. Maybe the canteen or the view is nicer than at Shannon Airport; I do not know. For that reason, however, they are willing to cannibalise the other facilities around the country to justify this one. That is kind of how Ireland works in general and Dublin Airport is just a facet of it. There is no change whatsoever in the law. Therefore, either what was going on before was unlawful, in which case the Minister should stand up and say that, or it was lawful, and what is going on now is not required by law. The European law the Minister mentioned defines it as follows:

'border control post of introduction into the Union' means the border control post where animals and goods are presented for official controls and through which they enter the Union for subsequent placing on the market or for transit through the Union territory and which may be the border control post of first arrival into the Union.

It is not "shall" be the border post of first arrival into the Union but "may" be the first post of arrival into the European Union. Somebody, somewhere, in the Minister's Department read that to mean "shall" be the border post of first arrival into the European Union. We need to get to the crux of why this is. Is it because there was a change in the law, which there has not been, or is it because a big new facility was built at Dublin Airport? Is it that somebody likes it and does not like the other ones because maybe they are not as nice or the air ventilation is not as good? Maybe somebody got to an official in the Department and said, "You know what? We will stymie Shannon and promote Dublin Airport", and this is just one little way to do it. I may be wrong in saying all that. Can the Minister please tell me I am?

As the Deputy knows, my approach as Minister is to make sure we are reasonable and balanced in all parts of the country, and that we invest in all sectors and do things as close as possible to the areas in which they most matter. That should be and is the right approach by the Government. Certainly, with regard to how we invest and on the work the Government is doing in respect of investing in different parts of the country, it is very much to put back in rural areas to ensure regionalisation and that people in all parts of the country get a fair crack of the whip.

The issue here is our legal obligation with regard to the application of EU law and the requirement for goods that are coming into the country to be checked at their point of entry. As the Deputy outlined, a case has been made that the movement of goods landing into Dublin Airport by road for checks at Shannon could meet the definition of transshipment, as provided for in the relevant EU legislation.

It is not transshipment.

From my understanding, that is the case that has been made and the point that has been put forward as a counterpoint to the fact that it should be dealt with and processed at Dublin Airport if it lands at Dublin Airport and there is a border control post there, which there is.

I have asked my officials to meet to discuss and tease out the issue.

I will revert to Deputies McNamara, Cathal Crowe and Carey and Senator Dooley on their representations. It is important that the issue be assessed fully and that the arguments and points they raise be addressed satisfactorily and answered clearly. The outcome from all of this must meet the requirements and ensure that we are compliant with the law. If possible, though, it should apply as much flexibility as practicable for people to operate the system well and efficiently. My officials will meet on this matter, after which we will assess the situation and update the Deputy.

That is welcome. I thank the Minister.

Employment Rights

I am disappointed that no Minister or Minister of State from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is present. This is an important issue that has been going on for a long time. Bogus self-employment is an area in which I have a great deal of interest, and I was part of the social welfare committee's report into the matter. We now know that there is more bogus self-employment than we originally thought.

RTÉ commissioned Eversheds Sutherland to conduct an independent review to determine whether workers' employment status had been misclassified. This was startling at the time, given that it was the then Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection that should have investigated RTÉ, not an independent company. The Department of Social Protection started its investigation in 2020, two years after the Eversheds Sutherland investigation started. The Department is looking into 500 cases and the review is ongoing.

Yesterday, I received a number of emails from workers in RTÉ who were concerned about what was happening. I will go through one email to give the House some flavour. Its writer contacted me as part of a group of workers in RTÉ who were experiencing serious difficulties with their contracts and employment status. They are part of an ongoing bogus self-employment investigation being carried out by the Department, which follows the recent Eversheds Sutherland process. As part of the latter process, it has been determined that many of these workers were placed on incorrect contracts for many years, in some cases decades. As a result, they have missed out on multiple employment benefits enjoyed by colleagues who are fortunate enough to be employed correctly. Some of these benefits include, but are not limited to, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity leave and pensions.

Through the Eversheds Sutherland process, RTÉ has accepted these workers' start dates as being much earlier than their first employment contracts in 2019. However, while RTÉ is willing to accept the earlier employment start dates, the settlement offer that it has put forward in recognition of the workers being misclassified does not adequately reflect their lost entitlements or come close to being fair compensation. They are particularly concerned that their pension benefits have not been addressed, leaving many of them in the position of having worked for RTÉ for most of their working lives but without the staff pensions enjoyed by their peers. The National Union of Journalists, NUJ, has advised them that RTÉ will not enter into discussions on pension contributions because it would be unaffordable for the organisation. This comes at a time when RTÉ has been given extra money by the Government. It seems to these workers that RTÉ has acknowledged there was wrongdoing but does not want to admit liability. They are asking whether this is acceptable.

Yesterday, workers met SIPTU and the group of unions negotiating on their behalf. SIPTU's feedback was that RTÉ was not willing to move the acceptance date, given that it was asking the workers to vote tomorrow on accepting these conditions. It is bad form for an organisation like RTÉ to treat workers in this way. Workers should not be forced to vote tomorrow on something that is unclear, because if they vote on it, they will have to accept the outcome. Many will probably not vote at all because they do not want to be tied into an agreement to which they did not agree and that has not been finished as far as they are concerned. I wish to raise this issue today, given that tomorrow is the voting day.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. Employment status has implications for PRSI contributions and associated social welfare benefits, tax treatment and employment rights. Many statutory employment rights are available only to employees as opposed to those who are self-employed.

There are three statutory bodies in place that make determinations on the employment status of a person for the purpose of PRSI, tax and employment rights, the first of which is the scope section in the Department of Social Protection, which determines employment status with a view to deciding the appropriate class of PRSI for an individual. The second body that may make determinations of employment status is the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, where employment status determines tax treatment. The third body is the adjudication service of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which determines employment status as a preliminary issue when adjudicating on employment rights complaints. The WRC is an independent statutory body under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Information on its complaints process may be accessed at www.workplacerelations.ie/en/complaints_disputes/refer_a_dispute_make_a_complaint/. The WRC also provides a telephone information service, which service is manned by experienced WRC information officers.

The issue of misclassification of employment status is a complex matter and decisions of the Department of Social Protection's scope section, the WRC or Revenue are not binding on one another. Appeals from the scope section are referred to the Social Welfare Appeals Office, appeals from Revenue are referred to the Tax Appeals Commission and appeals from the WRC are referred to the Labour Court.

I understand that RTÉ has engaged in an internal process of review carried out by Eversheds Sutherland and that the scope section is investigating the matter.

The Government takes the issue of false self-employment seriously. In this regard, the determination of employment status working group has been established and is chaired by the Minister of State with responsibility for business, employment and retail, Deputy English. The purpose of this working group is to examine issues around employment status, consider the scale of misclassification and discuss the potential to improve systems by which correct employment status is determined. The group's first meeting took place on Wednesday, 13 April, and its second took place on Tuesday, 21 June. It intends to meet again in the near future. The group consists of representatives from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, IBEC, the Construction Federation of Ireland and Irish Small and Medium Employers, ISME, as well as officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection.

I thank the Minister of State for providing a breakdown of the various statutory bodies that make determinations on the employment status of a person for the purpose of PRSI, but this situation involves workers with nearly 20 years of service who are being told that they have no pension rights, will not be allowed into the staff pension scheme and so on.

I received a message today from one of the workers, who said that there had been a meeting with SIPTU and that the feedback was that RTÉ was unwilling to move the acceptance date of tomorrow or to look at pensions, and that it was a case of take it or leave it. The workers' understanding is that RTÉ has engaged a top legal firm to deal with any case they may bring and seems willing to spend money fighting their entitlement to pensions as opposed to addressing their pension issues. SIPTU stated that it had not agreed this offer and that RTÉ had refused to engage with it on the matter, which is confusing for the workers if SIPTU has not negotiated any part of the offer.

Employment legislation in this country is weak. According to these workers, RTÉ as an employer is not negotiating with the unions involved - SIPTU, the NUJ, etc. These workers could be facing a difficult situation tomorrow and afterwards. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment should intervene and demand that the director of RTÉ meet the Government. People depend on their pensions. These workers were working with RTÉ illegally, given that they were in bogus self-employment and there was a misclassification of their employment status.

The fact that they have been deemed not to have been in bogus self-employment means RTÉ knew it should have been employing these workers directly, not through a bogus self-employment contract. Will the Minister of State, Deputy English, meet with the director of RTÉ to discuss this and give some explanation as to why these workers are not being given their pension rights?

As I said, I understand RTÉ has engaged in an internal review process, carried out by Eversheds Sutherland, and the scope section-----

That review does not relate to these workers.

The Department of Social Protection is investigating this matter. I will bring the Deputy's views to the Minister of State and ask that he seek a meeting with RTÉ to try to resolve the issue. As I said, the Government takes seriously the issue of false self-employment. I hope there will be an agreement in place within the next few days. I can only bring the Deputy's concerns to the Minister of State, which I will do this evening.

Substance Misuse

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, for attending this important discussion. I am sure we all watched RTÉ's "Prime Time" documentary the other day on Dublin's O'Connell Street. People throughout the country, having watched it, came away with the view that something needs to be done about this. The Minister of State and members of the Dáil Business Committee know I have been asking for the past year for statements in the House on the issue of the city of Dublin as a whole. Many of the issues captured by the documentary on O'Connell Street are happening on streets all over the city centre.

Following the documentary, there was something of a public outcry. There also were two fairly derogatory statements made by politicians. One I will not focus on because it was retracted and that is fine. I have more of an issue with the second statement because it comes down to the question of how we solve these issues, which I have been trying to combat for most of my adult life. I refer to the comment by the Minister for Justice during the programme that she is going to clean up O'Connell Street. Much of what she was talking about when she said that pertained to people. One cannot clean up people. Dublin City Council is not going to go out and clean up people.

This is a complex issue that requires a multitude of different responses. That is where the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, has a responsibility. There is a policing solution for O'Connell Street, which will deal with a small part of the problem, and it should be done. There is aggressive behaviour happening on the street, with people being attacked. The perpetrators certainly should be removed by the Garda at the first opportunity and held to account. However, that is very different from what has been happening down the laneways off O'Connell Street and in streets and laneways all over this city every single day and night. There are people in various states of trauma and people taking drugs, not for recreational purposes but to alleviate suffering they experienced at some point in their life.

I need to see that the Minister of State understands this issue and will work to address the problem. Will he outline in his response how the Government and he, in his role as Minister of State with responsibility for drugs policy, are looking at helping people to remove themselves from the scourge of addiction? What types of supports are being offered? I would like to know whether the Minister, Deputy McEntee, consulted him before saying she is going to clean up the streets. Will we have a high-level task force that will make the association between addiction and mental health supports? Will we see an increase in supervised detoxification recovery beds? There is really important and intensive work needed to remove a person from situations arising from traumatic experiences. Did the Minister talk to the Minister of State about safe injection facilities, consumption rooms or the types of outreach supports that used to be available but seem not to be there any more? Such supports must be provided by people who are trained by the HSE rather than volunteers, although there certainly is good work being done voluntarily. This is intensive work that requires professional training in outreach, communication, building relationships and, when trust is established, offering the appropriate supports, which must include mental health supports.

I have been advocating for a high-level, Taoiseach-led task force on these issues. The Taoiseach does not seem to be interested in that, which is a debate for another day. Does the Minister of State, who has responsibility for drugs policy, see a role for himself in addressing these issues? I am sure he does but I would like to know what he considers it to be. I would like to understand the metrics. How are we measuring success in this field? I believe we have failed continuously. The Minister of State has said on many occasions that the Government takes a healthcare approach to drugs. That is true to a point but we still criminalise people for behaviours that are about trying to alleviate suffering. That is what people are doing when they inject themselves, smoke crack cocaine and engage in those types of really complex drug-taking. It requires a much more complex response than simply criminalising them. I ask the Minister of State to take his time in outlining his response. I look forward to coming back in after he has given it.

I thank Deputy Gannon for raising this issue, as he has done many times both in the Dáil and privately. I thank him for his commitment to it. The issues raised in the "Prime Time" programme on drug and alcohol use on O'Connell Street fall under the remit of several Departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice, An Garda Síochána, Dublin City Council and the Department of Health. I welcome the opportunity to address this topic from a health perspective.

The Department of Health is very supportive of the 17 community-based drug services operating in the north inner city. These services, which play a valuable role in tackling drug and alcohol problems in Dublin city, receive funding of €4.4 million per annum through the local drugs and alcohol task force. Earlier today, I visited one such project, Chrysalis. I thank those involved in that project and the many other services for the incredible work they do in tackling this very difficult issue. The HSE and Dublin City Council fund the law engagement and assisted recovery, LEAR, project in Dublin city centre, which provides intensive case management services to people entrenched in street life on Middle Abbey Street, O'Connell Street and Talbot Street. The HSE also funds an assertive case management team, involving Ana Liffey and Coolmine, which works with people who are homeless and in emergency accommodation in the city centre, including outreach work with people who are on the streets.

The Government's strategic response to addressing drug and alcohol problems in Ireland is set out in the national drug strategy, Reducing Harm, Supporting Recovery. The strategy promotes a healthier and safer Ireland in which public health and safety are protected and the harms caused to individuals, families and communities through substance misuse are reduced. The strategy reflects a change in attitudes to substance misuse and promotes a more compassionate and humane approach to people who use drugs, with addiction treated first and foremost as a public health issue. It is underpinned by the key values of compassion, respect, equality and inclusion.

More than €130 million a year is allocated to the HSE for the provision of addiction services. There is significant investment in addiction services in the north inner city. Earlier this year, €850,000 was provided for a HSE-led initiative to reduce the health-related harms from cocaine and crack cocaine. Under this initiative, I confirm that €200,000 is being provided to the community healthcare organisation, CHO, area incorporating Dublin north city and county, involving seven HSE addiction services, including opioid agonist treatment, OAT, locations and other treatment and rehabilitation services.

Like the Deputy, I firmly believe that addressing the drug problem requires a multipronged approach, involving the provision of harm reduction and prevention initiatives in tandem with treatment services.

I thank the Minister of State for his statement, which I will go through in my response. He refers to a multi-agency approach that crosses the Department of Justice, the Garda Síochána, Dublin City Council and the Department of Health. Will he tell me when representatives of those bodies were last in the same room to discuss this issue? If there is a multi-agency approach, when was the last time such a meeting took place and when is the next one scheduled to happen? I am fascinated to hear the answer.

I asked for the metrics in regard to Reducing Harm, Supporting Recovery.

I fully appreciate that I am asking a question of the Minister of State, but what are the metrics contained in that strategy? How relevant is it today? Was it changed to address the needs, the demand or the accelerated urgency post Covid, when many more people had become involved in complex drug-taking? A lot more people were forced onto the streets again to drink alcohol, with harmful effects on them.

I wish to make a point on the moneys that are placed into the north inner city. It is the place I grew up in and I am very familiar with it. Ever since the four-tier social partnership was launched in around 1998, a significant amount of money has been placed into areas like the north inner city in combating addiction for different groups that have emerged. However, there is no real joined-up approach. Clearly, it has not been working. The Minister of State might be able to tell me what happens if, for example, a young man in the north inner city of 35 years of age has a cocaine addiction. Where would the Minister of State advise him to go to get support? People often come to me with such questions. The drugs task force is not in existence at the minute but probably has not been relevant for a very long time. Where should I tell that person to go?

The Government admits that there are significant specific challenges facing vulnerable individuals utilising homeless and addiction services in the north inner city. The Deputy made a point about emerging trends. A group has been set up to look at emerging trends. As I said, we saw where crack cocaine was taking hold in the north inner city, in Ballymun and in Tallaght, as well as in Limerick and we addressed that with funding. I visited Tallaght only two weeks ago. Those I met said that it had made a difference. Perhaps we could have been quicker in our response. Sometimes we need to be a bit more focused on those emerging trends. We have set up that group in the Department. It is monitoring all the various trends on the ground as well. I have lead responsibility for co-ordinating the implementation of the strategy across Departments and Government agencies. A priority for the strategy is to develop integrated care pathways for high-risk drug users, including people who are homeless, offenders and injecting drug users, to achieve better health outcomes. As the Deputy is aware, such people have very complex health and social care needs. It is an issue which goes across many different Departments. As I have said, different agencies including the Department of Justice, An Garda Síochána, Dublin City Council, the Department of Health-----

Have they met together yet?

I will find out if they have met. A lot of the time it is the officials who meet. I have met my counterparts in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on a few occasions. We also have the national drugs strategy. A midterm review was undertaken, and many of the emerging issues and trends were included in that review. I will find out for the Deputy what exactly has happened, which groups have met and when they are due to meet next.

Barr
Roinn