Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 2018

Vol. 967 No. 1

Leaders' Questions

Education is the bedrock of our democratic society and the key platform for our economic and social development. In that context, the role of the teacher is crucial as the quality of the learning environment is dependent on a regular supply of quality teachers and their retention within the education system itself. Pay equality for new entrants to the teaching profession is a very important factor in recruitment and retention. Regardless of whether people admit it, there is a crisis in teaching supply currently, in particular at second level, with a drop of more than 60% in applications to postgraduate teaching courses between 2011 and 2017. There are real concerns about shortages in key subjects including maths, science, Irish and modern languages. The Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools has warned that subject choice for students and the quality of teaching are at risk unless teacher supply is tackled. Again, languages, maths, science and home economics were instanced. The Irish Primary Principals Network has stated that surveys show real difficulties in recruiting substitute teachers at national school level. The pattern is repeated nationally, with Dublin being particularly problematic. A survey by the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association found that 90% of principals had experienced difficulty in sourcing a substitute teacher in the current school year. Mr. Seamus Mulconry has stated the evidence is in, the debate is over and we have a crisis in primary schools. Mr. Ger Curtin of the ASTI has noted oral examinations face challenges as a result and Education and Training Boards Ireland has stated shortages will affect subject choices.

The situation is compounded by the housing crisis, an inability to buy houses anywhere close to the schools in which people teach, high rents and high insurance costs. Young teachers entering the profession face an unprecedented level of costs, particularly in cities, which compound the situation in terms of pay inequality.

My party asked for a report as part of the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act 2017. That report was published and it outlines the challenges relating to this issue. It would cost €200 million in the round, including €60 million for teachers and €80 million for education generally. I acknowledge that there has been some progress in narrowing the gap but there is still a wide divergence. Given the crisis, particularly in the area of recruitment, I ask the Taoiseach if he can outline when talks will commence with the trade union sector to outline a roadmap for the restoration of pay equality for new teachers and new entrants generally.

I think I am correct in saying that since the Fine Gael-Independent Alliance-Independent Government came to office, we have managed to increase the number of teachers employed by the State by 2,000. We have 2,000 more teachers working in the education system than we had just under two years ago. Overall, we are able to recruit teachers but we acknowledge that we are encountering difficulties in some areas, particularly when it comes to substitution and certain specialised subjects. That is in part because we have taken on so many additional teachers and many of the younger teachers who might have been substituting in the past are now in full-time jobs or taking up permanent positions.

We have already made some progress towards pay equalisation. In 2016, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, concluded an agreement with teachers unions that provided for pay increases of between 15% and 22% for newly-qualified teachers. Those increases took effect in January 2017 and, most recently, in January 2018. That now means that a newly-qualified teacher straight out of college has a starting salary of just under €36,000 a year, which is not a bad starting salary for a graduate when compared to what is available in various parts of the private sector. Notwithstanding that, we, as a Government, acknowledge that there are 60,000 public servants who joined the public service since 2011, that they are on lower salaries than their peers and that this creates a difficulty.

We have pay restoration now across the public service and pay increases in most parts of the private sector. When we entered into pay restoration and pay increases - because of the sacrifices that Irish people made and on foot of decisions of Government which made that possible - we decided that we would start with the lowest paid. That is where pay restoration started and that was done with the agreement of the trade unions. However, we acknowledge that there are now 60,000 public servants - some of whom have been in the public service for seven years - who are on lower pay scales and that this creates difficulties. It creates discord in the workplace that some public servants are on different pay scales to others. We are also conscious that among those 60,000 public servants are younger people, often in their 20s and 30s, who face expensive bills, such as those relating to rent, who are struggling to save to buy homes and who often face high child care costs. Bearing this in mind, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has published the report on analysis of this and it is his intention in the next couple of weeks, once the unions' conference season is over, to begin an engagement and negotiation with the trade union movement with a view to achieving pay equality for public servants over a number of years.

We need to bear in mind, as Deputy Micheál Martin rightly pointed out, that this would cost €200 million in one year in return for which we would get no extra hours and no extra staff. It is not the kind of thing we can do either in one go or in one year, but we do want to enter negotiations with the trade unions in the next couple of weeks on a pathway to achieving that.

When the population increases, the number of teachers we employ also rises unless the Government increases the pupil-teacher ratio. The extra teachers are a function of retaining the existing pupil-teacher ratios, although last year my party was successful in forcing the pace in terms of getting the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level reduced.

In terms of the pay equality issue, one of the biggest factors, particularly in Dublin and other cities, is the high living costs associated with the crises in the areas of housing and insurance. These costs make it almost impossible for young people in particular to eke out a reasonable standard of living.

Rents are exorbitant and it is now almost impossible to buy houses, given the inflation in house prices in some locations. Consequently, teachers must commute long distances to the schools in which they teach. That is a factor for workers across the private and public sectors in our cities.

The time is up.

Can the Taoiseach be more specific about the time schedule? Is he talking about two years or a longer period? When he says he is prepared to enter talks, does he accept there needs to be a specific timeline for all involved?

As is always the case in negotiations, it is difficult to set a timeline because it depends on the willingness of the two parties in the negotiation to compromise and meet each other half way. Having been involved in some negotiations, I believe that setting a deadline oneself can be counterproductive because having done so, it makes it harder to achieve the outcome one wants. We will not set a deadline on it but if the trade unions are willing to compromise and come to an agreement with us, as we have done in recent months, the Government will not be found wanting. However, we need to bear in mind that this is taxpayers' money.

Another important point is that Deputy Micheál Martin is absolutely correct to say that housing and rental costs are very high. They are especially high for younger and new entrant workers. However, we must be careful. We have been here before. I remember some of the factors that led to the last economic crash where there was a cycle of increasing house prices and rents, which led to increasing pay demands, which led to increasing inflation. We all know where that ended. We, as a Government, are determined not to repeat the mistakes made by other parties in office. We need to make sure that we do not end up in an inflationary spiral.

In the past hour, we heard of the Government's decision to expel a Russian diplomat because of the nerve agent attack in England. I absolutely agree with the Tánaiste's statement that the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances is wholly unacceptable. He is correct in that. I also fully understand the need to protect what is called national security, which is also correct. The expulsion from Ireland of Russian diplomats acting as intelligence officers is a more than suitable action to be pursued if indeed they are behind the attack in England on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Regardless of this particular attack, diplomats of any country acting as spies should be expelled from any state or jurisdiction. However, we do need to see the evidence underpinning this decision. It is not sufficient to simply cite solidarity with Britain. Such a significant and dramatic Irish foreign policy decision should be dictated by Irish security analysis. In this case, it seems as though a decision has been based on information from a foreign security intelligence service, which is unprecedented. Essentially, the Taoiseach is asking us to trust Boris Johnson, which, dare I say, might not be the wisest course of action.

The move shows a disregard for Irish military neutrality and is completely in line with the efforts of Fine Gael and the Government to undermine and dismantle that neutrality. The Government has pushed for a more militarised EU through its support for permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, which would see Ireland participate in EU military operations and funding EU military research that is intended to complement NATO missions and strategic goals. As recently as the beginning of this month, Fine Gael's four MEPs published a document which seeks to tear up Ireland's military neutrality. The document proposes to give the Government the power to deploy Irish troops as part of military missions that do not have UN approval and this would eventually see Irish resources deployed at the behest of NATO.

The principles of neutrality and independence have always been at the centre of Irish foreign policy and Irish people overwhelmingly support the continuation of this policy. It is the Taoiseach's job to defend and reinforce that neutrality.

We cannot allow Government decisions to be based on assessments by British intelligence which - let us face it - does not have a good track record when it comes to Ireland. Does the Taoiseach intend meeting with the representatives of political parties in the Dáil to offer a full and frank explanation as to what has led to this dramatic shift in policy?

At last week's European Council meeting EU leaders unanimously agreed with the assessment of the Government of the United Kingdom that the Russian Federation is highly likely to have been responsible for the attack in Salisbury on 4 March and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We affirmed that all EU member states stand in unqualified solidarity with the United Kingdom in the face of this grave challenge to its security, or rather our shared security. The use of chemical weapons, including the use of toxic chemicals as weapons by anyone anywhere, is particularly loathsome and reprehensible. The attack in Salisbury was not just an attack on the United Kingdom, but an affront to the international rules-bases order on which we all depend for our security and well-being.

In light of the conclusions of the European Council, and following an assessment carried out by our security services, Defence Forces intelligence and Garda intelligence, in consultation with the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Tánaiste briefed the Government on our intended course of action this morning. The Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has met with the Russian ambassador and informed him that the accreditation of a named member of his staff with diplomatic status is to be terminated in line with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The individual in question is now requested to leave the State. This is very much an act of solidarity with the United Kingdom. As a country, Ireland has no quarrel with the Russian people, whom we respect and many of whom live here. Let us not forget that this is a dark and difficult time for the Russian people, who are mourning following the death of more than 60 people, including 40 children, in a shopping centre in a fire that reminds us of the great Stardust tragedy. I extend our deepest condolences to the Russian people on their loss.

As I mentioned, in terms of evidence the decision was made in solidarity with the UK but the decision on which person to ask to leave was based on intelligence and advice from Garda intelligence and Defence Forces intelligence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade already briefed the spokesperson for the major Opposition party at his request. He is also willing to convene a briefing for party leaders and party spokespeople today if that would be helpful. We are happy to do that. On our neutrality, Ireland is a neutral country. We do not join military alliances, we will not be joining NATO and we will not be part of a European army. However, when it comes to terrorism, assassinations, the use of chemical weapons and cyberterrorism, we are not neutral. We are joined with other neutral countries including Finland and Sweden, who have taken the same course of action as us, in expelling diplomats.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that it is not sufficient that he selectively brief his colleagues in Fianna Fáil on such a major development. This story, the abhorrence of anybody using chemical weapons in any circumstances, and not least the attack itself have caused unease and disquiet. I do not think that anybody would argue but that the State and Government have to take action where there is a prima facie case and where there is absolute concrete evidence of any such action and that a diplomat or diplomats must be expelled or an embassy punished in such circumstances. The story in the public ether however is that this is a matter of solidarity with the UK and that alone. I asked the Taoiseach if he would brief the leaders of the parties in this House. I take from his response that he will, but I put it to the Taoiseach - he should acknowledge this - that his position on military neutrality and an independent Irish foreign policy is threadbare. The recent actions of his four MEPs have served to reinforce the fact that he does not care a whit for that policy. The Taoiseach might tell us who on the Fianna Fáil benches was briefed and explain why it is that Fianna Fáil enjoys such selective treatment.

As I mentioned earlier, the Tánaiste will be happy to brief spokespeople or party leaders. The Deputy is welcome to send her spokesperson or to attend herself if she wishes. I will be here for the next few hours and then I will be back in Cabinet. I then have an Article 28 meeting with the President so it is just not possible for me to do it today, but the Tánaiste is available to do so.

I apologise. I have forgotten the second part of the Deputy's question.

Why Fianna Fáil-----

There is a provision in the confidence and supply agreement that there should be no surprises. We thought it appropriate that there should not be a surprise in this case.

We asked for it.

There is no such agreement with Sinn Féin.

(Interruptions).

Order, please.

I would point out as well that when this was done by other countries - and in the past, it was done without even a Government decision - it was done simply as a decision of the foreign Minister. However, we decided not to make our decision at the same time as the 14 other European countries that acted yesterday afternoon because we thought it appropriate to brief Cabinet on that decision this morning, and that was done. However, as I said, we are happy to provide a briefing to party leaders or spokespersons today.

The Attorney General's attack on the justice committee last Friday night was not one of his finer moments. It is wholly inappropriate of the Attorney General to make comments on the policy direction of the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017. That is not his role. His role is to advise Government on the legalities of the Bill only. It is not his place to speak publicly about his opinions on policy decisions in respect of how judges are appointed. He is not an elected member of Government but, rather, a legal adviser to same. If the Bill has ended up a "dog's dinner", it has more to do with the fact that the Bill presented by the Government was a mishmash between the original Private Members' Bill of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and what Fine Gael could live with than with the efforts of the Opposition on the justice committee to correct the Bill.

The Government came up with a convoluted system to overcome the fact that the presidents of the District Court and the Circuit Court were being excluded from the commission in an effort to avoid it being too big. If the Attorney General had bothered to follow what went on at the justice committee, he would know that we had already established and argued that the Bill would need substantial change in order to make it fit for purpose. The justice committee has had to try to overcome the small detail that the original Bill was poorly drafted. Perhaps the Attorney General would prefer if we had no interest. It is interesting that the only specific point he chose to single out relates to his own role in the process. What does this tell us? Has he forgotten that the Law Society and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, recommended the Attorney General's removal from the commission? Does he know that his counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland do not sit on the commission? The reasoning behind our amendments on this issue are based on the fact that the Attorney General has his say and influence at Cabinet when it sits to choose one of the three candidates presented to it by the commission. What would be the point in having the Attorney General involved in both processes?

The truth is that the judicial appointments process needs reform. It would be a pity if this opportunity were lost because of various political interests. The overriding aim of the Bill should be to lessen political influence over the appointment of judges. The Government Bill that arrived at the justice committee may have lessened the influence of the legal world in choosing judges but it left political influence very much intact. We tried to address that fact at the committee. It may be that Fine Gael does not want the Bill to go through - I do not know - and perhaps the Attorney General's comments were carefully orchestrated to turn the tide of public and media opinion against the Bill in order that it would be shelved without replacement.

Does the Taoiseach think the Attorney General's comments on Friday night were fair? Were they in line with how an Attorney General should behave? Was the Taoiseach happy with the Attorney General's performance?

The Judiciary has, in the main, served us very well. It has acted impartially and in an unbiased way and has been very objective and professional in discharging its functions down the years.

Regarding the appointments system, as the Deputy knows, the Constitution provides that the Government appoints judges, and we do not propose to change this. However, the Government can take advice on who is appropriate for appointment to the Judiciary and we can have an application process. This exists already to a certain extent with the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, but it is the strong view across the Government - Fine Gael, Independents and the Independent Alliance - that the time has come for reform and modernisation of the system, which is now 23 years old. This is a Government proposal to reform the way in which we appoint judges.

We want it to be more modern, we want it to be merit-based, we want it to be open to applications and we also want to have more lay members involved in advising the Government on who should be appointed to the Judiciary. That is what the Bill is all about.

The Bill has the full support of the Government and all of its members, as I mentioned. We are concerned that some of the amendments which were put down and got through on Committee Stage create difficulties. We do not agree with the removal of the Presidents of the Circuit and District Courts and the Attorney General from the appointments board. We have some difficulties in regard to the constitutionality of requiring the Government to explain why it does not make a particular appointment.

The Bill is coming back on Report Stage. We all know how the Dáil works. A Bill is not perfected on Committee Stage. That is the whole point. It is supposed to come back on Report Stage in order that we can have another look at it. I appeal to people across parties to ensure that the Bill is no longer a political football. Our Judiciary and judicial system is too important to be kicked around. We should not allow it to be a political football.

In that regard, I am very much encouraged by the comments of the Chair of the justice committee, Deputy McGuinness, who spoke about us working on the Bill on Report Stage to refine it. I am also encouraged by the comments of Deputy O'Callaghan on the radio during the weekend. He seemed to indicate that further amendments were possible on Report Stage. I encourage all Members of the House to work together to get the Bill through Report Stage in April, through the Dáil and into the Seanad long before the summer recess.

I have no doubt it is difficult to be on top of every issue but Deputy Ó Caoláin is the Chair of the justice committee. The Government's Bill did not have the Presidents of the Circuit and District Courts on the commission; we have tried to put them on it.

The Taoiseach did not address any of the issues I raised in respect of the role of the Attorney General. His comments were so outrageous that one could be forgiven for thinking that he is either deliberately trying to scupper the Bill or is displaying a serious lack of judgment, which is very concerning given the position he holds. If that was not bad enough he went on to pontificate about what the Supreme Court might do regarding the Angela Kerins case. The Attorney General works on the Executive side. He has stepped over the line relating to the separation of powers and has created a constitutional issue. In legal terms, he has scandalised the court.

The Government is a named defendant in the case of Ireland and the Attorney General v. Kerins. The Attorney General is involved in the nomination of Supreme Court judges. Should he be second-guessing their decision-making in public before the decision is made? A previous Government nearly fell over the behaviour of an Attorney General. Does the Taoiseach not think he should look for a new one? He might need to look for one himself if he does not.

I stand corrected; I am getting my committees mixed up. It is indeed Deputy Ó Caoláin who is the Chair of the committee and not Deputy McGuinness. It is very difficult for me to comment or form a view on remarks which somebody made off the record and in private. That is virtually impossible to do. However, I spoke to the Attorney General yesterday and sought clarification on the matter.

He has made no public comment on the case in question. However, he made a comment at a private luncheon organised by the Association of European Journalists. It is important to say-----

(Interruptions).

It has been general practice for a long time for journalists to observe Chatham House rules and I am disappointed that Deputies are laughing at their inability to do so. That is another day's work. It is important to point out that the case has already been heard. The hearings are over. There is no jury. The judgment is reserved. Taking account of these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied with his clarification. The Supreme Court will, of course, make its judgment in due course based solely on the submissions made, including submissions made by the Attorney General, and the applicable law.

On 7 March, the House approved the terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This was a long overdue action because the original convention was signed by this country 11 years ago. Ratification of the convention was warmly welcomed by all sides of the House, people with disabilities and campaigning groups.

The Taoiseach highlighted it in one of his weekly messages. During the course of that debate I, and others, sought clarification from the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, in respect of the associated optional protocol to the convention. This question was studiously avoided by the Minister of State. It later transpired that the Government had no intention of ratifying the optional protocol. This was in spite of the fact that a commitment was given in the 2015 roadmap that the convention and the protocol would be ratified simultaneously. The failure to ratify this protocol renders the convention toothless because people with disabilities will be denied access to the complaints mechanism of the convention. The purpose of the optional protocol is to enable people to make complaints to a recognised UN body where their rights under the convention have been violated. Without it, it is not possible for people to vindicate their rights and ensure that the Government lives up to its responsibilities.

If the Government is serious about supporting people with disabilities to be full and active citizens, what does it fear in adopting the protocol? The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, the Disability Act 2005, the Citizens Information Act 2007 and the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 are all on the Statute Books but have not been fully enacted. The failure to fully commence this legislation means disabled people have no rights to educational supports or assessments of need, no rights to community supports and services and no rights to independent advocacy. The excuse for not adopting the protocol, provided in replies to parliamentary questions, is that we first need to achieve a cultural change in regard to disability rights. It is true that we do need to achieve a cultural change but surely the best way of achieving that cultural change is to make the convention enforceable.

Will the Taoiseach live up to the commitments in the roadmap and accept the necessity to adopt this protocol as a matter of urgency?

The Government agreed at Cabinet on 5 December 2017 to proceed with the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A motion allowing us to do so and to approve the terms of the convention was passed in Dáil Éireann on 7 March. The purpose of the convention is to promote, protect and ensure full and equal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people with disabilities and to promote and respect their inherent dignity. The Tánaiste signed the instrument of ratification and it was deposited with the UN treaty office last week and the convention will enter into force in Ireland 30 days after deposit. I am pleased to note that Deputy Shortall is paying close attention to my weekly videos, which will continue notwithstanding decisions made on another matter.

In the speech I made on my election as Taoiseach, I mentioned that ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, holding a referendum on the eighth amendment, enactment of the Technological Universities Bill 2015 and producing a ten-year capital plan were among a list of substantial things I would do as Taoiseach. I am glad that we are ticking them off at a good pace.

On the optional protocol, while a commitment was given in 2015 to ratify it at the same time as the convention, our focus has been on ratifying the convention as a first step. This does not preclude us ratifying the optional protocol at a later stage. The protocol and the convention cover a broad range of commitments, some of which require substantial cultural change. Work is continuing on the reforms necessary for Ireland's compliance with the convention requirements. In the early implementation phase it is essential that the resources are appropriately focused on the enhancement of services needed for compliance with the convention and not diverted to other areas, such as the optional protocol, before we are fully ready to engage with it. For this reason, we have decided to adopt a phased approach as the most practical way of moving ahead. Accordingly, the optional protocol is not being ratified at this time but it will be ratified as soon as possible, at the latest following the completion of Ireland's first reporting cycle, which will identify any actions needed with regard to compliance with the convention.

The Taoiseach's response is very disappointing. Ninety-two states have ratified the convention and the protocol. The majority of EU member states have ratified both.

There is no reason we cannot do it here if there is the political will to do so. The Taoiseach has caused huge disappointment across the community of people with disabilities, who had such expectations about the convention and its associated protocol being adopted this year. Surely the Taoiseach cannot stand over the denial of people's rights. The phased approach has not worked with the legislative measures I have mentioned and it will not work with this either. The Taoiseach appears to be using this as an excuse for not delivering on the promises he made to people with disabilities. Will he think again on this? I cannot accept what he is saying and I do not accept that he is refusing to allow people to have a right of recourse under the convention. Surely the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, will not stand over that denial either.

As I indicated in my reply, it is our intention to ratify the optional protocol following the completion of our first reporting cycle, at the latest. That makes sense. After years and decades of delay we have now ratified the convention and it is our intention to ratify the optional protocol as well after the first reporting cycle.

After promises for many years by many Governments this has been done. I compliment the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, on making sure it was done. Vindicating the rights and freedoms of people with disabilities and providing opportunities for them goes way beyond conventions. It includes matters such as: the increase in the disability allowance, disability benefit and carer's benefit which takes place this week; extending medical cards as a right to children with severe disabilities in receipt of the domiciliary care allowance, which took place last year; extending free general practitioner, GP, care to carers and people in receipt of carer's allowance and carer's benefit, which we will do this year; and the additional money we have provided for respite care. We cannot do everything in one year and we cannot do as much as we would like to do in any year, but I do not believe any reasonable person can argue that we are not making a great deal of progress on all these issues, not just with regard to the convention and legal instruments but also in respect of practical matters such as income support and access to services.

Top
Share