Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the beginning of last month, and indeed, before then, I raised the plight of section 39 bodies in the health area, specifically hospices. They are being treated in a particularly shabby, cynical and dishonest manner in relation to pay restoration and funding for that by the Minister for Health and the Government generally. This relates to the Lansdowne Road agreement and new public sector pay agreements.

The hospice movement is one of the most cherished areas of care in our health service, uniquely enjoying almost universal approval from the public for the remarkable care, empathy and space that it gives to families and their loved ones at the end of their lives. It also provides a range of services, including community-based care, respite and advice. The clearest manifestation of this has been the public endorsement of hospices through extraordinary fundraising over the years, for both capital and current funding. Hospices would not be able to keep their doors open were it not for the public support for fundraising that goes on constantly. Therefore, I am surprised by the degree to which the Department of Health, the Minister and the Taoiseach have been stonewalling on a simple and key issue of pay restoration similar to that enjoyed by public servants in the HSE arising from the new public service pay agreement, Lansdowne Road and the unwinding of the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, pay cuts.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, have told me in replies to parliamentary questions that FEMPI did not apply to section 39 bodies, but it did. There is a trail of documents. I met representatives of five hospices who produced the documentation to this effect from Barry O'Brien, the national director of human resources, in November 2013. He was very clear, writing of the consistent application and implementation of the provisions of the Haddington Road agreement and appointing an assurance team to work with all HSE and HSE-funded agencies to bring this about. There is also a letter to the then CEO of Galway hospice on 7 October 2013 which refers to the implementation of payroll and related cost reductions in line with other publicly funded bodies. The Labour Court made an adjudication against Milford Care Centre at the time, telling it that it must implement the cuts because that linkage with the HSE pay scales was there and was acknowledged.

It is time to end the Jesuitical playacting around this issue and the splitting of hairs that characterises the Government's response to date. The record should be corrected because the pay cuts were applied to hospices. The funding should be restored to hospices and the link to the HSE pay scales should be restored forthwith. I want the Taoiseach to confirm today that he will do that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share the Deputy's very strong support for the hospice movement. In my constituency, I have helped to secure funding for the St. Francis hospice in Blanchardstown, ensuring that it was opened and staffed when I became Minister for Health and building on the work of my constituency predecessor, Brian Lenihan, who ensured that public land was provided on which to build it. It was paid for primarily through funds raised in the community. As Minister for Health I also gave commitments to the new hospice being built for Wicklow and the recently opened hospice in County Mayo. Everyone in the House is very supportive of the hospice movement which provides people with the possibility to spend their last days with dignity and care, whether in the hospices or receiving hospice care in their own homes.

The specific issue raised by the Deputy was discussed at Cabinet yesterday. I have asked the Ministers, Deputies Paschal Donohoe and Simon Harris, to examine the matter and come up with a solution or at least a clear answer in the coming weeks. The Deputy will know that the difference between section 38 and section 39 bodies is not Jesuitical. It is there in law in the Health Act, which I believe Deputy Martin himself brought through the House. People who work for section 38 bodies are public servants and are paid for by the State while those who work for section 39 bodies are generally employees of charities or foundations or occasionally of businesses. The way that the Government funds those section 39 bodies, which include most of our hospices, is through a block grant over which the hospices have significant autonomy, and they decide what they do with those funds. Some of it will go towards paying staff while other parts of it will go towards equipment, possibly building costs, debt reduction or other costs.

Over the coming weeks, we will have to assess whether the increase of the block grants, which many of these bodies have been awarded, was there to cover pay restoration in part. We have to protect taxpayers and it should be borne in mind that the people who use hospice services and donate towards them are also taxpayers. We cannot have a situation where we give a section 39 body the same money twice. If the increase in the block grant that they received in recent years was sufficient to cover pay restoration, that is a separate issue than if it is not, and this is the question that will be examined.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no point in the Taoiseach saying that we all support hospices and then he screws them. That is what he has been doing on this issue for the past six months. It is utterly dishonest. The replies from the Minister and from the Taoiseach are dishonest. The hospices' non-pay costs have increased significantly. We all have correspondence from the hospices on the matter.

It is very simple. The pay linkage should be restored. The Taoiseach can refer to the legislation but we all know the difference between section 39 bodies and the HSE. The bottom line is that the HSE made it very clear that they would use the service level agreement to ensure that the section 39 bodies honoured the pay cuts, or in other words, if they did not, the HSE would cut their funding and do so to the equivalent level that it would identify. This is terrible blackguarding that is going on here. It is time to get rid of all the verbiage and the nonsense. The hospices raise most of the capital funding and 25% to 30% of their current funding themselves, and the public contributes to that. We carry on with this play acting here, pretending that there is some sort of wall between these bodies and the public pay scales. There has always been a link. They, along with the other section 39 bodies, have been excluded from the implementation of the new agreements, wrongly in my view, and in a very dishonest way.

It should be rectified as a matter of urgency because these staff will not be able to afford to continue over the next three years due to the breaking of the link between pay scales in respect of pay restoration by the Taoiseach's Government and the HSE.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I reject that allegation and the language which Deputy Martin has just used in this House. I think using that sort of language in the Chamber is unbecoming of the Deputy's office as Leader of the Opposition.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To which language is the Taoiseach referring?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The unparliamentary language which the Deputy used. It is unbecoming of his office to use-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Taoiseach define which word he finds unparliamentary?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I will not repeat the Deputy's language.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is being ridiculous.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Ceann Comhairle may wish to examine whether or not that is one of the words which is prohibited and considered to be unparliamentary.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be more in the Taoiseach's line to deal with the substantive issue.

Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should calm himself down.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGrath should stick to North Korea.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whether it is unparliamentary language or not-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Taoiseach speak to the issue?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----it is certainly beneath the dignity of this House, of the Deputy's office and of his party to use that sort of language in this House.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the dignity of the people involved?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Leaving aside the particular utterance, I reject the substance of the allegation. Let us not forget the history of recent years. Under this Government of Fine Gael, the Independent Alliance and Independent Members, we have increased spending for health two years in a row. In the five previous years we held health spending at the same level or increased it slightly. There were three years of cuts to health spending. Each of those three years occurred when Fianna Fáil was in office and when the Deputy was a member of Cabinet. He is the person who cut the health budget three years in a row. We stabilised it and have now increased it again. I absolutely reject both the content and the tone of the Deputy's language.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Taoiseach restore the link?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the substance of the Deputy's question-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGrath should realise this is no smiling matter.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----I agree that there is a long-standing pay linkage between public servants and hospice staff. That pay linkage should be honoured. The question which needs to be answered in the next week or two is whether those section 39 bodies already received the money to do so in their block grant.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They did not. The Taoiseach knows they did not get the money.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to protect the taxpayer here. We are not going to pay section 39 bodies twice for the same thing.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach needs to protect the service as well.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Harris, to examine this and to come back to me with an answer in the next two weeks. We will certainly have this matter resolved by the time the HSE service plan for 2018 is produced.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An Taoiseach never tires of telling us that he wants to lead a republic of opportunity. Apparently he is a champion of those who get up early in the morning and go to work, unless of course they are a family earning less than €75,000 a year. It seems that in Deputy Varadkar's republic the only people who deserve affordable housing are the well off. Hundreds of thousands of working people are caught in Fine Gael's affordability trap. They earn too much to qualify for social housing but not enough to rent or buy a decent home. Where is the opportunity in Deputy Varadkar's republic for the young couple with an income of €50,000? They are forced to choose between paying up to 55% of their net income on rent or living with their parents for years in order to save for a deposit. Where is the opportunity in Deputy Varadkar's republic for a couple in their late 50s who are separated or divorced from an earlier relationship? They can manage their rent alright, but they fear for a future of real financial hardship after retirement. Let us not forget the single working person on €35,000 a year, even though the Government obviously has. Such people are forced to live in shared accommodation because they simply cannot afford to buy or rent.

Average rents are now between €14,000 and €23,000 a year. Average house prices across the State are at €250,000 and, in Dublin, somewhere in the region of €400,000. No doubt the Taoiseach will tell us that supply is the answer and that it is his Government's number one priority. We all know, of course, that supply in and of itself does not guarantee affordability. At the height of the boom, when the State was delivering 90,000 homes a year, the Taoiseach will remember that prices of rental and purchase of accommodation were rising through the roof.

The Taoiseach will also tell us of his myriad schemes - help to buy, the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, and home building finance Ireland. This amounts to €1.1 billion of subsidies to private sectors developers. For what? To provide tax relief for those earning over €90,000 with enough savings to buy their own home. Homes are for sale at €320,000 in Dublin and €280,000 elsewhere, courtesy of LIHAF and home building finance Ireland. Nothing is provided for the hard-working families who earn between €40,000 and €70,000 a year. Despite all the talk and all the subsidies for developers, it is clear there is no opportunity for working families to live in affordable accommodation. My questions are very simple. They are in fact so simple that the Taoiseach may be able to answer them without referring to his script. What is the Government's definition of affordable housing? What is the exact number of genuinely affordable housing units which will be delivered by the Taoiseach's Government next year?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot give the Deputy a numerical definition of affordable housing. Obviously it depends on the individual. I certainly believe that somebody who earns the average income in the State should be able to get a mortgage and purchase a home. Without giving the Deputy a numerical definition I cannot answer the second part of the Deputy's question. In terms of what we have done, it is important to acknowledge that the Government has brought about rent certainty. We now have a very large number of people renting in Ireland, perhaps more than ever before. Only a few months ago we introduced rent certainty which caps rent increases at 4%. That has provided certainty and relief for many people who otherwise would be facing-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is hilarious.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----very big increases in their rents. And yes, it is about supply. It is not just about supply, but it is about supply. I am encouraged by the fact that planning permissions and construction are increasing. I was in my constituency on Monday with the Minister, Deputy Murphy, visiting the Hansfield area where more that 1,000 houses are under construction. Some 150 of these are social housing and 800 to 900 are family and affordable housing. In that part of my constituency there are houses available for €320,000 and apartments available for €220,000. People able to secure a 35 year mortgage would pay €880 a month, which is considerably less than people pay in rent in many parts of the city. We are making real progress in that regard.

There is one thing on which I have to answer the Deputy. The Deputy is using the usual Sinn Féin technique of telling me what I think. Yes, I do stand for people who work and get up early in the morning. I absolutely do. So does this Government and so does the party which I lead. The definition which the Deputy has offered is entirely bogus. I have no idea where he has gotten the threshold of €75,000. I will give him some examples of the kind of things we are doing for people who do get up early in the morning and work, at all income levels.

In the recent budget we reduced the USC for everyone who pays it. Some 70% of taxpayers will see a reduction in the USC. We raised the standard rate cut-off point. That benefits any individual earning more than €35,000 and any single-income couple earning more than €45,000. We reduced prescription medicine costs for everyone - those who have medical cards and those who do not. That applies to people of all incomes. We have also expanded child care provision and introduced a guaranteed second year of pre-school for working people of all incomes. In addition we have introduced subsidised child care. There are now subsidies universally for working parents of all income levels. There are also targeted subsidies for those on the lowest pay. We have increased the minimum wage twice under this Government for those on the lowest pay. We are restoring public sector pay, starting with those on the lowest incomes but extending up the line as time goes by. I could go on, but those are just a few of the myriad ways in which this Government is standing up for people who work, people who get up early in the morning and people at all income levels.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Taoiseach tell us about himself?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach. I was hoping he would mention Hansfield in Fingal. I watched the Twitter clip yesterday of the Taoiseach in a hard hat. Initially I thought it was a "Callan's Kicks" satire because the Taoiseach was standing beside houses, the sale prices of which are €315,000 to €395,000. One would need a combined household income of between €81,000 and €101,000 and a deposit of €31,000 to €39,000 to purchase one. The Taoiseach asked me where I got my definition of affordable housing. It is from legislation and from existing affordable housing schemes introduced in this State. The definition is above the threshold for social housing and equates to a household average of approximately €75,000. It is absolutely remarkable that our Taoiseach does not even know the legislative definition of affordable housing, let alone have a definition for his own Government, and cannot tell us how many affordable housing units will be delivered for the €1.1 billion of subsidies he is giving to private developers.

All of those measures the Taoiseach announced to put pennies in the pockets of working families will do nothing if he does not address the spiralling cost of purchasing or renting affordable homes. Perhaps he can answer as to why he has no targets. When will he introduce a definition of "affordable housing" to give working families a real break?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have the exact figures to hand but I will ask the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to provide them to the Deputy as soon as possible.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He does not have any either.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was in Hansfield, not Hanstead. It is in the administrative county of Fingal. Hanstead may be in the Deputy's constituency. Perhaps it is in Lucan or somewhere like that. The Deputy is, of course, misinformed because the houses that were behind me are not for sale. They are social housing.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The houses on the left of the Taoiseach were for sale. They were right behind him.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were just pictures of houses.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cardboard cutouts.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is getting to the point of triviality. For anyone interested in the facts, there are approximately 1,000 homes under construction there. They include social housing that is not for sale and apartments that are specially adapted for people with disabilities.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Three hundred and ninety-five thousand euro.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The development includes private housing. The whole point of what we are trying to do in places such as Hansfield is to have a mixed area with apartments and houses of different types. What we want is integrated communities. We want social and affordable housing and housing for people who are a bit better off all in the same area. The Sinn Féin approach, of course, is totally different. We have seen that from the way its members behave in Dublin City Council. They do not want mixed communities.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is absolutely untrue.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They want social housing-only communities. They want segregation in our cities.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is absolutely not true and the Taoiseach knows that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know the social consequences that derive from that.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach should talk to his own councillors.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know how Sinn Féin votes in the councils on which it has councillors across Dublin.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mixed tenure-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is to keep the property tax down, cut the budget for homelessness, cut the budget for housing and support only segregated communities, with people living in social housing in one district and people living in private housing in the other.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dishonesty of the highest order.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason Sinn Féin wants that is because it wants segregation. It wants to divide people so it can brew up discontent and disadvantage.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Shame on the Taoiseach.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we have order, please?

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The hashtag #MeToo is trending as women worldwide share their experiences of sexual harassment. Hollywood has been rocked with accounts of rich and powerful men abusing their power over women and vulnerable young men. In Ireland, women in the arts are speaking out about persistent sexual harassment they have experienced. The Gate Theatre, which has been a recipient of public funds over many years, seemingly did nothing to protect the women who actually worked for it and in it. What is becoming clear from all these examples is that sexual harassment is a universal experience. Every single woman in this country and non-binary people know the stomach-churning feeling brought about by unwanted sexual advances and remarks. Such harassment has an enormous impact on the self-confidence, health and self-esteem of women. In that context, why did the Taoiseach trivialise this issue when he was asked about it and use it as an opportunity to score a point against political opponents? When asked if such a culture existed in Leinster House, where hundreds of women work in countless capacities, the Taoiseach chose instead to talk about his experience of being interrupted by men and women from the Opposition. In doing so, he belittled a serious issue and made it about himself. He managed to turn #MeToo into #MéFéin.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach made a comment saying inappropriate, boorish and obnoxious behaviour does not necessarily constitute bullying or sexual assault, but so-called low-level behaviour creates a culture of tolerance and acceptance of violence against women generally. It should be called out. Why else would sexual harassment, rape and domestic violence be all so under-reported? Only 13 cases of sexual harassment were taken through the Workplace Relations Commission in 2016, yet in an EU survey of Irish women, it is indicated that 48% have been sexually harassed since the age of 15 while 39% have experienced severe forms.

Are we to rely completely on the Internet for women to come out and disclose this? Alternatively, is this State going to take measures to gauge the real extent of sexual abuse and harassment? Does the Taoiseach take this seriously enough to commission a report now on sexual abuse and violence in Ireland, SAVI? Such a report has not been produced in this country for 15 years. Does it not say something about the priorities of this State that no such report has been produced because it would cost €1 million, although the Taoiseach's new department of propaganda costs the taxpayer €5 million? Is it not shocking that Rape Crisis Network Ireland cannot produce any figures for 2016 because it had its funding cut by 70% in 2015? Does the Taoiseach take this issue seriously enough to carry out a SAVI study now? Will he properly fund agencies and refuges combating violence against women? Does he believe a nationwide campaign about consent is now necessary in schools, colleges and workplaces to send a message of zero tolerance of this type of harassment?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am afraid the Deputy is misinformed. I was asked two separate questions. One was on sexual harassment, and I gave a very clear answer to that. It was an unequivocal condemnation of sexual harassment and sexual assault of any sort in any place, not least workplaces. I was asked a separate question about macho behaviour in the House, to which I gave a separate answer. I will assume the Deputy is misinformed and not deliberately trying to misrepresent me or conflate two different answers to two very different questions.

It is very much my view that everyone is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace. There can be no tolerance of sexual harassment, assault or bullying in any form in any workplace. It is very important that we recognise this. I certainly want to express my admiration for the men and women who have come out in recent times to tell their stories of sexual assault and violence against them. Perhaps that can change the culture in the future in order that people who engage in such behaviour against other individuals will think twice if they know they will be exposed for it.

With regard to the Gate Theatre specifically, it receives significant public funding, as do many private bodies and companies. The theatre is an independent body, however, and it has its own board and trustees. It is incumbent on it now to honour its obligations under employment equality legislation to establish an independent inquiry and take necessary actions based on that. The Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, met representatives of the Arts Council last night. It was an initial meeting to discuss general concerns over the mistreatment of women, bullying and sexual harassment in general across the arts sector. I do not believe for a second that the problem is confined to the arts sector. I am sure it is prevalent in all sectors.

With regard to the SAVI report, it is not a matter of money. Funding for sexual and domestic violence organisations amounted to €22.1 million this year, which is up €1.5 million on last year. That is just that part of the budget. Therefore, a survey that costs €1 million over three years could easily be accommodated within a budget that is well over €22 million. The question that has to be asked is a different one. Are the statistics we already have adequate? There are statistics - European statistics and Garda statistics. If the statistics are not adequate, is a SAVI study the best way to get adequate statistics? Is reporting a study, the methodology of which was determined 15 years ago, now the right thing to do 15 years later? I have asked the key Ministers, Deputies Flanagan, Zappone, Doherty and Harris, to come together on this to examine two questions. Are the statistics we have adequate and, if not, what is the best form of study that should be done to establish the true level of sexual harassment and sexual violence in the State? Is it to be a repeat of a study whose methodology is 15 years old or should it be something else? As I said before in this House, I have an absolutely open mind on this. It is not a matter of money but a question of whether the study is necessary and, if so, the best way to do it.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe anybody buys the idea that the Taoiseach was not convinced about producing another SAVI report with the same methodology. The point is that the figures are 15 years old, which is almost a generation. Clearly, there must be changes. It should be of interest to this State to monitor the trends.

The Taoiseach indicated that money would be provided in the budget for Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, in order that it could cut the fees for women who want to get barring orders. Those fees still exist.

There does not seem to be any real sign or example that the Government takes this whole question very seriously. There has been an internal review and an internal email at The Gate. In the past we have seen how useless that is as a form of investigation. There should be an investigation into what took place there. The fact that lots of people in the arts seem to have known about this bully existing for years yet nothing was done says everything about the tolerance around this issue.

The disclosures on #MeToo and by other people disclosing their experiences is very important. It is part of a global movement against gender-based violence and for gender equality in general. That is to be welcomed. My question is whether the State is serious about getting to the heart of the figures. Women's Aid, for which the Taoiseach gave a figure, had its funding cut during the recession by 31%, including a 20% cut by Tusla in 2015. The Taoiseach should not try to cite a figure in comparison to one year, he should talk about what has happened to the services in recent years.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not discuss specific individual allegations in this House. It is very important that all allegations are taken seriously and fully investigated but it is also important that we remember that allegations are allegations and no matter what form of crime or violence is being alleged people do have a right to due process and to have their good name protected. I would encourage the Deputy not to hang anyone before he or she has had a fair trial-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe those women.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----regardless of the issue. In terms of the Government's actions to date, I draw the Deputy's attention to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. It is legislation introduced by the Government that was enacted on 22 February this year. It enhances and updates laws to combat sexual exploitation and the sexual abuse of children, including new offences related to child sexual grooming and strengthened defences relating to child pornography. It also criminalises the purchase of sexual services, introduces new provisions regarding the giving of evidence by victims in sexual offence trials and introduces a new offence dealing with public indecency. Other provisions include maintaining the age of consent to sexual activity at 17 years for a new proximity of age defence as well as a statutory statement of the law with regard to consent to sexual acts. That is the legislative progress the Government has made this year alone.

As I mentioned, funding for domestic and sexual violence organisations in the round was increased by €1.5 million this year and in addition to that I have asked the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Health to consider the issue Deputy Coppinger raised on up-to-date statistics on sexual violence. That issue will be discussed at a meeting of the senior officials' group today.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two week ago I raised in this House the matter of the predatory behaviour by our banks with regard to tracker mortgages. As I said at the time, most of the bank robbers are now deep in the boardrooms and not on the streets as used to be the case. I believe it was important to speak on the issue, because episodes like the tracker mortgage scandal reveal where the real centres of power lie in the State. The position is that there is no law for the bankers and the rich and another law for the rest of us. That has only been compounded by the revelations contained in the so-called Paradise Papers. Unprecedented levels of tax evasion or aggressive tax avoidance have been uncovered.

Prior to the American Civil War the rallying cry was, "No taxation without representation". That was a very noble aspiration. It is a principle that has now been completely reversed, especially in this country. It is clear that all of those who pay little or no taxation, including bankers, have all of the representation. They have access to, and control the levers of power and have rights that the ordinary working person could not dream of.

During the 2016 debate in this House on the Panama Papers, the then Finance Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, said he was bringing forward legislation to enable tax defaulters to make a qualifying disclosure to Revenue. He was very good. The Minister went on to say that defaulters who have used offshore accounts or assets in their evasion will "find themselves in a very difficult position if they do not come forward quickly to regularise their affairs with Revenue". Could the Taoiseach tell me how many of those people have come forward? I did not see any queues outside the Department of Finance but perhaps the Taoiseach knows the figures. I suggest that not many came forward. Institutional tax avoidance still appears to be rampant in the State.

AIB held an EGM last Friday. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Minister for Finance was present at the meeting? If not, he should have been, given that we have more than a 90% stake in the bank. Colm Keena reported in The Irish Times on Monday details about AIB. He referred to leaked files from the Isle of Man offices of the offshore law firm Appleby. The files reveal Government-owned AIB refused to give the Revenue Commissioners access to data on its offshore customers when responding to a court order in 2015. The bank refused to obey the courts of this land.

For most people on the outside listening to this today, and indeed for most of us here, the ins and outs of the international tax system are a complete labyrinth. It is deliberately designed so that ordinary people cannot understand it. What is not hard to understand however is the sense that such episodes reveal a large gaping hole at the heart of our democracy. The massive double standard that operates in this arena rightly infuriates people. In the meantime the Taoiseach makes great play about acting the tough guy with respect to social welfare fraud. He said they should be named and shamed. Unless I missed it, I did not see the Taoiseach outside the headquarters of AIB or Bank of Ireland with placards and hashtags saying that bankers should be named and shamed and that they should be outed. It is a case of one law for the rich.

The Taoiseach knew all about the banking scandal in 2011 when he was on the finance committee. He was told by Friends of Banking Ireland and other organisations yet the merry-go-round continues. I want to know if the Taoiseach attended the EGM and what it was all about.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have never been a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance. I do not know if the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, was present at the EGM but I do not believe he was.

With regard to the Paradise Papers, there are 13 million documents and I do not think anyone has had a chance to read all 13 million yet so I imagine the story is still very much evolving. Tax avoidance is very much an international problem. We know that when one country closes a loophole people seeking to avoid tax move on to the next country so what is required is an international solution to what is very much an international problem. The OECD is the international body that deals with this issue. It has defined Ireland as one of 22 countries that has a clean bill of health when it comes to tax transparency. In addition, we have agreed to enter into information sharing, whereby for the first time the Revenue Commissioners will share with their counterparts in other countries how much tax companies have paid. That is an important step forward so that revenue authorities in different countries will be able to share that information.

In terms of the Revenue Commissioners, they have said they will examine the Paradise Papers. They will take further action if required, whether it is against individuals or companies, and in addition to that they have informed me that they have collected €1 billion already from targeting offshore operations.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach did not provide me with any information about the former Minister, Deputy Noonan, and how people went to Revenue to disclose their offshore dealings. Before he gets carried away with the OECD saying how good we are with tax compliance, the dogs in the street know what is going on. They also know what is going on in the banks because ordinary families have been terrorised and robbed. I hope you do not get too annoyed with my choice of language, a Cheann Comhairle. The bank robbers are deeply entrenched among the policy makers in the banks. As I said two or three weeks ago, the Government just hopes this storm will go away and it will ride it out and nothing meaningful will happen to those people who are milking us dry day in and day out, and taking the lifeblood of the ordinary people. We do not have any legislation to deal with the big boys and we are playing catch-up all the time.

The Taoiseach referred to so many million pages in the Paradise Papers. The Government gets some cover from that. It is a lovely name for them. It is all confusion. However, ordinary people are no longer confused. They know the Government and the previous one had no will to tackle the bankers, tax avoiders and defaulters. I know there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion but I am talking about big business and the fact that there is no law for them while the rest of us are all subject to the rule of law. That is not acceptable. Even if the Taoiseach was not a member of the finance committee he was well aware of the carry-on of the banks as it was brought to his attention nine years ago. He claims to only know about this in recent days but that is a cop-out.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is quite correct that there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is a crime and tax avoidance has a wide spectrum ranging from tax incentives set up by the Government, which we encourage people and businesses to avail of, to the other extreme which is people using aggressive tax planning to exploit loopholes in the law - loopholes which the Government is closing.

Examples include getting rid of the double Irish, eliminating stateless corporations and, in the Finance Bill now going through these Houses, changes in the way that we tax international property.

I note Allied Irish Banks issued a statement yesterday indicating that it was decided to wind down the relevant companies in 2012. This Government was not in office in 2012. The party I lead only came to office in 2011, so within a year of us coming to office, AIB decided to wind down those companies. AIB also confirmed that the relevant entity ceased operations by 31 December 2013. I note from the statement that at all times the bank claims it complied fully within the law in any jurisdiction in which it operated.

Ultimately, of course, tax matters are matters for the Revenue Commissioners. I have total confidence that any issues of concern will be investigated by the Revenue Commissioners, as appropriate. I call on the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to share any information with the Revenue so that we can take action.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Minister attend the bank's extraordinary general meeting?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To the best of my knowledge, "No". I do not know, but I do not think so.