Mary Lou McDonald
Question:10. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach to report on the work of the parliamentary liaison unit in his Department. [7939/24]
View answerWednesday, 20 March 2024
Questions (10, 11, 12)
Mick Barry
Question:11. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach to report on the work of the parliamentary liaison unit in his Department. [9340/24]
View answer
Cian O'Callaghan
Question:12. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach to report on the work of the parliamentary liaison unit in his Department. [10351/24]
View answerOral answers (10 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
The parliamentary liaison unit in the Department of the Taoiseach assists the Government in its relationship with the Oireachtas. It works with the Office of the Government Chief Whip on issues that arise at the Business Committee and the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform, including Dáil reform proposals and amendments to Standing Orders. The unit helps the Office of the Government Chief Whip in the implementation of the Government’s legislation programme. The unit also assists the office of the leader of the Green Party in work relating to Cabinet, Cabinet committees and oversight of the programme for Government. The parliamentary liaison unit provides detailed information on upcoming matters in the Dáil and Seanad, highlights any new Oireachtas reform issues and provides assistance in establishing the new procedures arising from Dáil reform. The unit is staffed by one principal officer and one administrative officer. There are currently two vacancies, one for the position of a higher executive officer and one for a clerical officer.
Before last weekend, 130 asylum applicants were living in an inhumane condition in Dublin without on-site hygiene facilities, toilets accessible at night or washing facilities. In an attempt to hide Government failure on asylum accommodation, they were put on a bus and moved to the outskirts of Dublin to the site of a former nursing home at Crooksling. The conditions there were so bad that several of the men who had been ferried there felt they were better off on the street. This is another example of the Government's failure to conduct a community services audit prior to the placement of refugees in a given area. Government failure to ensure proper amenities and services are put in situ places communities across the State under enormous pressure, as well as, of course, the asylum seekers themselves. The Government has failed utterly and appears to be led by a policy that relies on speculators who make tens of millions of euro from the process. People want to do the right thing and support those seeking protection but State failure is putting intense pressure on limited services within communities. Why did the Government only recently start an audit of available accommodation places for international protection applicants? Is this audit now complete? What are its findings? When will we see the introduction of a fair, efficient and enforced immigration system?
I wish to speak up on behalf of 118 workers whose pay will be slashed on 31 March by the Government. They are public health services staff who are out sick with long Covid and have been on full pay as part of a dedicated scheme which the Government plans to scrap on 31 March. Many of them are nurses. They were on the front line and risked their health for us before vaccines were available and with insufficient PPE. Now, they suffer from fatigue, brain fog, migraine and other symptoms of long Covid. After the Government cuts their pay, their incomes will be down by 50% after three months. These people are members of households not just with mortgages but with significant added medical costs. This is cruelty. Is it going to be part of the Taoiseach's legacy or will he do the right thing and extend that scheme? I ask him to give me a direct answer. This is a pressing matter.
There was an announcement today about the opening of the mother and baby redress scheme arising from the legislation around that scheme. There is widespread anger among people who went through the mother and baby institutions over the arbitrary six-month rule and exclusions from the redress scheme. I have never heard an answer from the Minister or the Government as to that arbitrary six-month rule. I am an adoptee and any adoptee or psychologist, or anybody who knows anything about children, will know the impact of the regime that existed around taking children away from their mothers because they happened to be unmarried and that the damage and trauma start from the moment of separation.
That is the crime, if you like, and the trauma that may result from the forcible separation of mothers from children is the issue that needs redress. How, in the face of the testimony of survivors of these institutions and everything we know about the development of human psychology in children, can the Government even now stand over this six-month exclusion? It is shocking. As a doctor, the Taoiseach should know that. Does he have a response to that? Even at this late stage, the Government could do the right thing and extend the scheme to all those who were victims of that terrible regime and were forced through those institutions.
Throughout the referendum campaign, Aontú said that the care amendment was designed by the Department of Finance. We said the wording proposed in the referendum was designed to protect budgets. A leak of the Attorney General's advice and responses to freedom of information, FOI, requests that have subsequently been published by the Department of Finance basically give credibility and weight to our challenge during the referendum. The note to the Department of Finance says that the language was intended to avoid concrete and mandatory obligations to provide support to those who need it. The advice of the Attorney General also said that there was no certainty about what was meant by "durable relationships" and that it would lead to an increase in litigation in the future. Will the Taoiseach make sure there is an independent investigation into the leaking of the Attorney General's advice before the referendum? Will he hold an independent investigation into the fact that the Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, misled and misinformed the Dáil and the Irish people about the advice he got from the Attorney General and call for his resignation?
When will we get legislation for 100% redress for those affected by apartment and duplex defects? It has been almost two years since the Government received a report that revealed the scale of this problem. Up to 100,000 families have been affected as a consequence of a regime of self-certification introduced by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It has been more than a year since we had a very welcome political commitment by the Government that we would have a 100% redress scheme. However, we do not have a Bill, heads of a Bill or anything else to make that commitment a reality. There is an interim funding scheme which is welcome but it is not 100% redress. If we do not get the heads of a Bill shortly, it will not be in place before the end of this Government and a general election. Will it happen? This is having a real impact on people's lives. I will give a recent example. Marlfield development in Tallaght, next door to Deerpark, is affected by water leaking, mould and damage to ceilings as a result of unsuitable tiles installed by the developer. Not only is it bad for those who live in it, there are also the cases of eviction by landlords who are willing to sell to South Dublin County Council under the tenant in situ scheme to avoid the tenant entering homelessness, where South Dublin County Council has said "No". It will not buy the properties because of the problems with building, despite the fact that it already owns 12% of properties in the development. When will we have the legislation to deal with the underlying issue by providing 100% redress? Will the Taoiseach make sure that the tenant in situ scheme is used in these cases?
I raised previously the case of a fire station officer from Dunleer, John Molloy. The Taoiseach's office has responded to me about it. At the end of the day, the difficulty is that Mr. Molloy will turn 60 on 24 May. He is the fifth man in the minimum crew of five. Not only would we lose him with no one to replace him, we could also have an issue with the fire station. The Taoiseach said I would get an answer from the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform but we need some kind of interim fix if we will not have an answer from the Department quickly enough. A circular could be issued by office of the Minister for housing, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, as happened before. We need to find some kind of solution to allow John Molloy to keep operating and Dunleer fire station to stay open.
I thank the Deputies for their questions.
On IPAS and Mount Street, officials visited the tents on 16 March. Contrary to some reports, Crooksling has toilets, hot showers, personal toiletries, food, a bus service to Dublin and 24-hour security on site. Safetynet is providing health screening, which commenced on 18 March. There is a building where meals are served and men can charge phones and have food provided. Crosscare is also conducting support visits. That is essentially what is being provided at Crooksling at the moment.
I will have to come back to Deputy Barry with a more definitive answer on Covid-19 and long Covid, but my understanding is that Covid-19 is now being treated as any other respiratory virus would be treated and long Covid is being treated as any other chronic disease would be treated. It would be difficult to explain to someone who perhaps has multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease or some other chronic illness, why his or her employment rights are different from those of people who have long Covid. We have moved beyond the idea that Covid-19 is a different category of disease from other viral or post-viral syndromes. The suggestion is that people acquired long Covid at work, but that is not necessarily the case. Most people acquired Covid-19 in their homes where they spent most of their time. That may not have been the case for everyone, but it was generally the case.
The Minister set out the thinking behind the mother and baby institutions payment scheme on several occasions. It is an €800 million scheme, the biggest one of its nature ever. Redress is about more than financial compensation. It is also about birth information and tracing, medical cards and other practical supports that are being provided.
On Deputy Ó Murchú's question, I will follow up on the matter of Mr. Molloy. It would be strange if he was forced to retire and then rehired in a few months' time. We need a common sense approach to this if at all possible. I will follow it up with the Department of public expenditure.
Deputy Tóibín asked about the referendums. The referendums are over. They happened. The results have been accepted by the Government. On the leak of the Attorney General's advice, it was only one day's worth of advice. There was a lot more to it than the ten pages that were leaked and published. Those particular ten pages showed that the term "strive", in the Attorney General's view and in mine, was a strong term, was judicable, would have led to additional rights for carers and would potentially have left the State open to litigation and costs. If anything, it supported the arguments the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, made in favour of a "Yes" vote. Of course it was the view of the Departments of Finance and public expenditure to use the weakest language possible in order minimise the potential cost to the State. That is their job. It is the job of the Departments in charge of the money to warn the Government about the cost of anything we commit to do. It does not stop us committing to do it. That is why we chose strong wording, such as "strive", and that can be seen in the Attorney General's advice.
When it comes to durable relationships, no Attorney General will ever say that any new language in legislation or the Constitution is certain. If we were to get to the point where we publish advice from the Attorney General, it would have to be written in a different way because anyone who has been in government understands that the Attorney General will always say what to us is obvious, namely that it cannot be said with absolute certainty what a court will decide. That was presented in a very different way from the way the advice was read or read by me.
Deputy Paul Murphy's questions on-----
What about leak investigations?
That is not a matter for me now anyway. Leak investigations rarely lead anywhere unless they are willing to carry out searches of places and so on and I do not think the Deputy is calling for that. Perhaps he is. He knows where the search would start and I do not think he is calling for that and I do not think people who believe in a free press would call for it. To be very clear, I am not calling for that.
On the apartment defects, we expected the legislation this year and I will follow up on the issue around the tenant in situ scheme.