Dáil debates

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Ceisteanna - Questions

Cabinet Committee Meetings

4:15 pm

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

1. To ask the Taoiseach when Cabinet Committee B, social policy and public services, last met; and when it will meet again. [52001/17]

Photo of Gerry AdamsGerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Taoiseach when Cabinet Committee B, social policy and public services, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [52880/17]

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Taoiseach when Cabinet Committee B, social policy and public services, will next meet. [1831/18]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

Cabinet Committee B last met on 16 November. While the date of its next meeting is not yet scheduled, I expect it will be within the next few weeks. The committee oversees the areas of social policy and public service reform including education, children, social inclusion, the Irish language, arts and culture, and continued improvements and reforms to public services. The committee seeks to co-ordinate work across Government on planning and implementing policies that contribute to a more equal and socially inclusive society. Some of the particular initiatives this committee will focus on include the roll out of improved child care services and subsidised child care, targeting educational disadvantage and improving services for people with disabilities.

The Government is committed to bringing forward policies and programmes in line with the programme for Government that improve people's lives and support individuals and families through targeted and efficient public services. Implementing fair policies alongside budget measures to increase the minimum wage, social welfare and pension payments and reduce the burden of taxation on working people, help to ensure that everyone can benefit from our improving economy. The Cabinet committee provides the opportunity to shape proposals on issues such as equality, disability or poverty which might require input from multiple Departments.

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

This is obviously a very important Cabinet committee dealing, as it does, with social policy. Is the committee looking at the issue of the pension anomaly that currently exists that disproportionately adversely affects women? When will we see proposals emerging on this? There are two elements to this issue. The most obvious one is the impact of averaging on women who spent periods outside of the workplace, particularly for child rearing and specifically the impact of calculating the average from the first day worked. The second issue is the impact of raising the pension age for people who have contracted to finish work at 65 and how the gap between the formal ending of work and qualification for a State pension will be addressed.

I wish to raise one other issue with the Taoiseach. Last September a campaign called Make Way Day was run by the Disability Federation of Ireland. It was a very simple campaign involving people with disabilities, particularly people in wheelchairs and those who are visually impaired, making their way around our thoroughfares, footpaths and streets and putting stickers on obstacles including things like sandwich boards, improperly placed seating and signage, in order to make us all aware of how such things negatively impact on the freedom of people with disabilities to move about our towns and streets. Would the Government consider examining this campaign with a view to formally promoting it? The Cabinet social policy committee might be the vehicle through which Government could determine how it could become a national campaign that would have meaning, possibly leading to legislation to improve accessibility and mobility for people with disabilities in our country.

Photo of Gerry AdamsGerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just trying to figure out how this committee could work and am looking at some of the contradictions that arise. One of the contradictions arising relates to the significant increase in cyberbullying directed at children as well as in online predators. The Taoiseach knows that digital technology plays an increasingly major role in the lives of young people and is a tremendous educational resource. There seems to be a contradiction between the position set against the Taoiseach's name with regard to bringing forward a digital safety commissioner and the position articulated by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten. Just before Christmas the Taoiseach called on international technology firms to do more to protect children from these threats but indicated that he was cancelling plans to create a digital safety commissioner who would have the power to impose substantial fines on social media firms that permit harmful or illegal material to be published on their platforms. It seems from what he said that the Taoiseach thinks the onus should be on the technology companies themselves to police their services. However, the Law Reform Commission has recommended an online safety watchdog and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, supports the introduction of a digital safety commissioner, as does the relevant Minister. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination in the Government's position on this issue. While I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted, these technology companies are lobbying against EU proposals to strengthen online privacy rules which would effect the money they make from online advertising. Is this the type of issue that deserves the attention of the Cabinet committee? Sinn Féin supports the creation of a digital safety commissioner and Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire brought forward a very good Bill on same. We believe that an office of a commissioner for digital safety could promote safety online, review and regulate harmful digital communications and so on. Is this the type of issue that would be put before the committee to make sure that the Government has a joined-up position on it?

Could the Taoiseach indicate his current position regarding a digital safety commissioner?

4:25 pm

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any hopes I had that 2018 would see an improvement in the dire housing situation were dashed when a flood of people in dire circumstances attended my clinics over the first couple of weeks of the new year. I suggest that the report produced yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, which claims successes in exceeding targets in the delivery of social housing is misleading propaganda. When we look more closely at the claim in the report that the housing needs of 25,000 people have been met, we see that 75% of the successes in meeting people's housing needs involved housing assistance payments, the rental accommodation scheme or leasing from the private sector. I will give an example. Gemma, who is a mother of two children, is included in the Government's success figures because she got a housing assistance payment, HAP, tenancy last February. After her landlord pulled out of the agreement in April, Gemma and her two children, aged four and two, had to go into emergency accommodation. They are now living with Gemma's grandmother, her three uncles and her aunt, which means that eight people across four generations are sharing a two-bedroom house. Last year's statistics consider her to have had her housing needs met. The reliance on the HAP scheme, which is not meeting people's housing needs because it is precarious rather than permanent, means that the figures are not credible. There is evidence in last year's figures that many of the people in respect of whom we are claiming success are back in emergency or chronic overcrowding conditions. Are we looking at the facts of this crisis, or are we just spinning propaganda about it?

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

It is clear that in the public mind, access to public services is a major priority. During the 2016 general election campaign, we had a debate on whether to prioritise improving public services or introducing a United States-style tax system. The social policy and public services committee is a key conduit of Government policy in this regard. The bottom line is that public services in sectors like health and housing are getting worse. There are 500,000 patients on waiting lists. Over 8,000 people are in emergency accommodation. There are 95,000 people on the social housing list. The Taoiseach has a habit of trying to use figures to suit himself, but the bottom line with regard to health is that approximately 2,000 extra beds were provided between 2000 and 2010. I accept that approximately 800 beds were taken out when the recession hit in 2008.

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

It started going down in 2007. There was no recession in 2007.

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

No. According to figures we received from the Department, an extra 142 beds were provided in 2007. I am not into the detail. The point I am making is that over 2,000 beds were provided. The number of beds was then cut by 800. In fact, another 450 beds were taken out in 2011 and 2012. We can go into who was in charge in each of those years, but that is not the point. I do not know whether the Cabinet committee on social policy has any bearing on the preparations for the budget. In the run-up to the budget, surely we need far more transparency about what it will take to deal with something like an accident and emergency crisis. When I asked the Taoiseach about Letterkenny University Hospital, I did not get any answer from him other than the general kind of stuff that drives people mad. He spoke about an allocation of €30 million. The fate of the specific bed capacity proposal that was made by Letterkenny University Hospital is a concrete example and illustration of the inertia in the system. The hospital authorities asked last summer for €1.8 million to open 20 beds. If that money had been provided, it would have enabled the hospital to do substantial work during this winter's crisis. It is alarming that this money was not provided and, as a result, we drifted into the crisis and people experienced significant distress.

I could not agree more with what Deputy Boyd Barrett has said about housing, which was raised repeatedly during the first clinics of January. It is awful that mothers and other young women who are doing everything they can to give something to their kids do not know where they will be in two months' time. I do not get a sense that the Government understands the gravity of the housing crisis. People with housing difficulties must go bananas when they see the figures and hear suggestions that targets are being exceeded. If we talk to people on the ground and go into their houses-----

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

We have to go to the Taoiseach to get answers.

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

The matter of pension policy generally, and pension policy reform in particular, falls under the remit of this Cabinet committee and is on its agenda and work programme for this year. There are many pension anomalies, but the pension anomaly about which people most often speak is often not as well understood as it might be. The anomaly is that some people get a full pension after paying PRSI for just ten years, whereas other people who have made payments for 30 or 40 years do not get a full pension. It is anomalous that someone who entered the workforce at the age of 55 might work for ten years until the age or 65 and get a full pension at that stage, whereas someone who worked for 30 or 40 years might not get a full pension. If we are to correct this anomaly, we need to move towards the total contributions approach, which will be a completely new system.

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

Not necessarily. The Government did not have to do what it did in 2012.

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

That means giving people a full pension for paying contributions for 35 or 40 of the 50 years for which they could have worked. It is inevitable that such a change could cause some people to lose out while others gain.

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

The Government could recognise child-rearing and things of that sort.

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

All of those things need to be taken into account in any change that may occur.

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

We are talking about the contributory old age pension. There is nothing between the two pensions in any event. It is a stupid debate.

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

By the way, these rules date from the 1960s rather than from 2012. A return to the pre-2012 situation would not correct this anomaly because the pre-2012 rules were unfair as well. There were people getting full pensions after working for just ten years while people who had worked for 30 years got 98% of their pensions rather than full pensions.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government could change the number of contributions.

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

Yes, it could change the number of contributions

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

I do not think we should mislead the public in this regard. It is certainly not practical to give people full pensions after paying in for just 20 years. Fundamentally, pensions have to be-----

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

Non-contributory pensions do not have to be paid at all.

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

We are talking about contributory pensions here.

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

The gap between the two is not huge, so it is an academic argument.

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

I am trying to answer, a Cheann Comhairle. I assumed Deputy Howlin was referring to the State contributory pension.

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

I assumed he was not proposing to abolish the State contributory pension. Perhaps he was.

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

Of course not.

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

I would be totally opposed to any proposal from the Labour Party or anyone else to abolish the State contributory pension.

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

That is stupid. It is a stupid thing to say.

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

I would oppose any suggestion that people who have paid PRSI for many years of their lives should lose their pensions.

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

The Taoiseach should not demean himself. The serious question we have raised deserves better than that.

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

The Minister for Finance has already expressed his intention to extend public sector workers' right to work to the age of 70. It will not be a requirement that everyone will have to work up to the age of 70. It is proposed to allow people who are currently required to retire at the age of 65 to work until the age of 66, or even until the age of 70 if they so wish. The Government has given the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform approval to go ahead with that legislation and publish it as soon as possible. The State pension age is increasing. Legislation introduced by the last Government, of which I was a member, increased the State pension age to 67 and subsequently to 68. It would be difficult to justify paying a State pension to some categories of workers who retire early but not to others. It is a complicated issue.

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

It is transitional.

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

The transitional pension was abolished by the last Government, of which Deputy Howlin and I were members.

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

I may have misspoken in December when I commented on the issue of the digital safety commissioner at a press conference. To the best of my recollection, the Government has not made a decision on whether to legislate to establish a digital safety commissioner. As I may well be incorrect in that regard, I will double-check it. I do not recall a Government decision being made. Obviously, any proposal would have to come to the Cabinet. It could come to this Cabinet committee first. I am certainly not opposed to the proposal. I just do not recall having seen a proposal, or its having been approved by the Government to date. Having said that, I am very conscious of the issue of digital safety. When we are talking about the Internet, we are talking about a worldwide web. We need to be realistic about what can be achieved by an Irish commission or Irish laws, which of course would have no extra-territorial effect whatsoever. That is why I have been putting pressure on the companies themselves, which operate on an international basis outside this country, to be more responsible and to mediate and edit the content that is on their websites.

On housing numbers, HAP, works for many people. Deputy Micheál Martin cited an individual case and I have no doubt that what he said about it is true. However, I have encountered individual cases in my constituency involving people in receipt of HAP or rent supplement who do not accept social housing when it is offered to them because they would prefer to stay where they are. Even though they receive the HAP or rent supplement, they like the houses they are in, believe they are secure in them and do not want to move to different roads, parishes or school districts. It is important to bear in mind that every individual's experience is different and that the housing assistance payment works for many people. The evidence can be seen in the number of people in receipt of rent supplement or HAP who decline offers of social housing.

In terms of solutions, as the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, has indicated, we will move more and more towards direct build and increasing the social housing stock in the years ahead. While HAP will be a solution for many people, the focus in the capital programme is already shifting towards building more. In 2016, only 657 houses were built and added to the social housing stock. The figure rose to 2,245 last year, which was an almost threefold increase. These figures include direct builds from local authorities, houses built by approved housing bodies, such as the Peter McVerry Trust and the Iveagh Trust, and houses acquired through Part V. The increase from 657 to 2,245 is significant and our target for this year is to have 3,800 social houses built. Building can only be ramped up at a realistic pace because there are only so many construction workers and firms in the country. We ramped up the number of social houses built from 657 in 2016 to 2,245 in 2017, a significant increase. We will continue to ramp up activity in the years ahead.

Last year, there were also 2,266 acquisitions and 1,757 voids were brought back into use. If one leaves out HAP and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, the social housing stock increased by approximately 7,000 last year. While this was a significant increase, the figure needs to be closer to 10,000.