News | MATT CARTHY TD

Carthy challenges Cavan Monaghan colleagues on failure to support Student Nurses

Carthy challenges Cavan Monaghan colleagues on failure to support Student Nurses

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy has called on his constituency colleagues in Cavan Monaghan to explain why they supported the continuation of ‘the exploitation of student nurses’ when they voted against a motion to provide pay to them last week.

A Dáil motion calling for government to commit to paying student nurses was narrowly rejected last week. Deputy Carthy and his party colleague, Pauline Tully, supported the motion. However, it was rejected in favour of a government amendment that refused to pay student nurses which was supported by Fianna Fáil TDs Niamh Smyth and Brendan Smith and Fine Gael Minister Heather Humphreys.

Teachta Carthy said:

“The votes of the three government TDs from Cavan Monaghan was pivotal. Had they supported our student nurses, the motion calling for them to be paid would have been passed.

“Many people then further were shocked and astounded to see a Fianna Fáil statement subsequently state that student nurses don’t do ‘real work’.

“The nurses I’ve spoken with over the past number of months have outlined workloads that would put many politicians to shame.

“Student nurses and midwives deserve to be paid – they are a critical part of our healthcare infrastructure, and it is not acceptable, particularly in the midst of a pandemic, to leave them out in the cold like this.

“The work they carry out goes much farther than what is required in their studies. Anyone involved in healthcare will be familiar with student nurses providing cover well beyond what their placements ask of them.

“Our student nurses have delivered everything that has been asked of them this year.

“Over 11,000 healthcare workers contracted the virus including student nurses. They have been unable to work the part-time jobs they normally would have due to fears of cross-contamination and have not complained.

“Any ask that has been made of them has been met. The only thing they are asking for in return is to be paid for their work, and this governments response is that they don’t do ‘real work’.

“Those Cavan Monaghan TDs who refused to support our student nurses most explain their actions. For our part, we in Sinn Féin will continue to support all our front-line healthcare workers, including our student nurses.”

ENDS

Carthy welcomes progress on Transport Managers’ Brexit complications

Carthy welcomes progress on Transport Managers’ Brexit complications

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, has welcomed progress secured to ease the burden facing Transport Managers in the face of Brexit.

Transport Managers, which every Road Haulier is obliged to have, must have a Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC). However, many of these certificates, especially issued to companies based in border counties such as Cavan and Monaghan, were issued in the north. The Department of Transport had previously indicated that in all of these cases a Transport Manager would be required to resit an examination and undo a new application for a CPC at considerable cost and bureaucracy.

However, the issue appears to have been resolved following the intervention of several border county Dáil Deputies, including Matt Carthy.

Last Thursday Deputy Carthy raised the issue in the Dáil alongside his Sinn Féin colleagues, Darren O’Rourke and Ruairi O’Mhurchada. The matter was also raised by Fine Gael’s Joe McHugh. In response on behalf of government Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Hildergarde Naughton confirmed that a new process would allow operators affected to transfer the northern based CPC for an Irish issued certificate. However, questions remain regarding the position of Transport Managers who reside in the north but work for operators in the south.

Transcript from Dáil Debate

Deputy Darren O’Rourke: I raised this issue previously with the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of State, Deputy Hildegarde Naughton, on the matter. We are 36 days from Brexit. Regarding certificates of professional competence, CPCs, there is an element of bureaucracy here that needs to be straightened out. We will have the same people on 2 January as we have now, with the same qualifications and the same experience. They will be equally as competent. We need to do away with this bureaucracy.

The requirement for transport managers to be resident in the EU is blind to the Good Friday Agreement and the relationship with the North. It is a significant issue that needs to be resolved.

Deputy Matt Carthy: That this situation has been allowed to get to this last-minute point is deeply concerning. It is my view that the matter can be easily resolved with political will. What we need to ensure is that transport management CPCs that were issued in the North of Ireland or in Britain will be recognised post Brexit. In terms of the residency clause referred to by Deputy Darren O’Rourke, we need that to be amended to ensure that Irish citizens who happen to live in the North are recognised as being able to hold this position.

As a former MEP, it is my absolute belief that there will be clear willingness at European level to facilitate that. The Government just needs to make sure that it happens.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú: It has already been said that this issue is absolutely straightforward. We have been dealing with Brexit and we all realise there is no good Brexit for Ireland. We have looked at mitigation, which is what the withdrawal agreement and the Irish protocol are about. We hope that we will have them.

What we have here is hauliers who are currently operating with recognised CPC qualifications that will not be recognised post Brexit. We have to introduce sensible solutions and mitigations. We also need to deal with the residency issue. I put it to the Government that this issue needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Deputies referred to conversations they have had with other Ministers. Deputy McHugh and I raised this issue with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Thomas Byrne, at the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. The Government knows about the issue. We just need to ensure that a solution is provided for the people who require it for their livelihood.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport (Deputy Hildegarde Naughton):

I thank the Deputies for raising this matter. EU legislation sets out several requirements that must be satisfied in order to be eligible to hold a road transport operator licence, one of which is professional competence. In order to fulfil this requirement, every road transport undertaking in Ireland or, indeed, any other EU member state must have a nominated transport manager to effectively and continuously manage its transport activities. The transport manager must hold a certificate of professional competence in either road haulage or road passenger transport, depending on the nature of the operator’s business. This certificate must be issued by an EU member state and is ordinarily obtained by passing a written examination. As highlighted by the European Commission in 2018 and, more recently, in July of this year, after the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December, transport managers’ CPCs issued by an authority of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, or a body authorised by the United Kingdom will no longer be valid in the EU.

As part of the Government’s Brexit preparations, the Department of Transport carried out a review and identified approximately 200 individuals with a UK-issued transport manager CPC who are currently nominated as transport manager for Irish road transport operators. The Department recently wrote to these transport managers and the relevant operators to ensure they are aware of the position as outlined by the European Commission.

There are steps that affected transport managers and operators can take to ensure they continue to be in compliance with the relevant EU legislation. Individuals who hold a UK-issued transport manager CPC and who wish to act, after the end of the Brexit transition period, as transport manager for a road transport operator based in the EU, including Ireland, will need to obtain a transport manager CPC issued by an EU member state. This affects UK-qualified transport managers working for Irish operators, but also those working for other operators based in other EU member states.

As outlined in the Department’s correspondence to those UK transport manager CPC holders who work as transport manager for Irish-based transport operators, the Department has communicated with the European Commission on this important issue. I am pleased to inform the House that the Commission yesterday evening indicated that before the end of the Brexit transition period we may issue a corresponding Irish transport manager CPC to those UK-qualified individuals working for Irish operators. This is extremely welcome news for those affected transport managers and operators as it means that the transport managers will not now be required to undertake an Irish exam in order to continue to work as transport manager for an Irish operator.

In light of this clarification received from the European Commission, my Department is now examining as a matter of urgency the arrangements that must be put in place in order to allow for the issuing of corresponding transport manager CPCs to affected individuals. A further communication will shortly be issued to affected transport managers and operators to inform them of this recent update from the European Commission and to outline what needs to be done in order to obtain an Irish transport manager CPC. We will advise impacted transport managers to apply before the end of the year to avail of these new arrangements, and will communicate this as soon as possible. It is important to note that those affected will not need to sit an exam to secure an Irish CPC.

Deputy Joe McHugh (Fine Gael): I do not know what to say. I am delighted. There is no doubt that the operators and hauliers who take their business really seriously and have many challenges ahead of them will be absolutely delighted with this news.

I thank the Minister of State for the follow-up. Obviously, Deputy Ó Murchú and I value the fact that the message put across the table yesterday at the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, of which we are both members, reached the ears of people in the European Commission. I am absolutely delighted and very much look forward to how this will work out with the Department of Transport.

Deputy Darren O’Rourke: The Minister of State provided a welcome update regarding one of the elements of this issue, namely, the CPC. I would like to hear from her regarding the requirement for transport managers to be resident in the EU. There is a specific Irish context in terms of the North, the Good Friday Agreement, and the way people live in one area but commute across the Border to work in another. That is an anomaly that still needs to be addressed. I have not heard anything from the Minister of State on that issue.

Deputy Matt Carthy: I was not aware that raising a Topical Issue matter could have such an impact. I certainly was not aware of the power of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. All of those are welcome. It is good news that those concerned will not have to sit a test. It is really important that the process the Minister of State is initiating is free of bureaucracy or a financial penalty or cost on those involved. Like Deputy Darren O’Rourke, I urge the Minister of State to ensure that Irish citizens who happen to live across the Border are not discommoded as a result of a decision which they completely opposed in the first place.

Bearing in mind that the majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union, it would be a travesty if they were discriminated against.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú: I thank the Minister of State for her response. We also need an answer on the related issue of residency. Like Deputy McHugh, I obviously put this completely down to our interaction at the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs yesterday. The constituent of mine who approached me on this issue thanks the Minister of State and me, as well as Deputy McHugh for the small part he played in my game.

Deputy Hildegarde Naughton: I thank the Deputies for their contributions and for raising this issue. It is welcome news that will come as a relief to many transport managers around the country. On the EU residency requirement for transport managers, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 1071/2009, the transport manager for a road transport operator based in the EU must be resident in the EU.

That was communicated to the transport managers in that communication by the Department. As I stated, my Department is working very hard to communicate this news to transport managers and the fact that they will not need to sit the exam, which is very welcome in the run-up to Brexit at the end of the year.

ENDS

Government ‘Gone to Ground’ amid School Bus chaos – Matt Carthy TD

Government ‘Gone to Ground’ amid School Bus chaos – Matt Carthy TD

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy has accused Minister for Education, Norma Foley, and government TDs of having ‘gone to ground’ on the problems many families continue to face in accessing student transport.

Deputy Carthy this week reported that he was dealing with more families now than at the beginning of the school year, as some students have been ordered off their school buses despite being eligible and having paid for their tickets.

Teachta Carthy said:

“We are nearly half way through the school the year, and many parents are worn out from the problems around school transport.

“My office is being contacted daily by parents who are struggling to get any communication, let alone an answers or assistance from Bus Éireann or the Department of Education.

“Last Summer I had asked Minister Foley to provide assurance that every student that was eligible for school transport would be provided with a seat on their bus. She indicated at that time that this would be a priority for government.

“Yet since September, many students in Counties like Monaghan have been unable to access school transport because of bureaucracy and government failure. The bulk of the cases I have been dealing with in Co. Monaghan were those who were late paying their fees. There are several reasons for this including, in many cases, where families didn’t have the funds at the time or where they couldn’t access the website.

“Recently, students in Co Monaghan who have been travelling to school by bus since September have been ordered off their school bus! In other instances, students have been denied access to school transport since the beginning of the school year despite the fact that they are eligible and their bus fees have been paid.

“This is scandalous. All the while the Minister with responsibility has gone to ground while local government supporting TDs have been silent on the issue.

“This is an issue that primarily affects rural communities. It is discriminatory because it places a burden on some families to access education for their children.

“The government must act now to ensure that those eligible for school transport get a seat on their school bus. I will continue to challenge Minister Foley on this issue. Government silence while families struggle to manage their children’s transport to school is not acceptable”.

ENDS

Matt Carthy TD welcomes new supports for Agricultural Students

Matt Carthy TD welcomes new supports for Agricultural Students

Sinn Féin spokesperson on Agriculture Matt Carthy TD has welcomed a commitment from the Minister for Agriculture to provide funds to support disadvantaged agricultural students who have been excluded from the Student Hardship Fund and the €50 million Covid-19 Support Scheme.

Students at Teagasc Agricultural Colleges, which fall under the remit of the Department of Agriculture, have been prevented from accessing support schemes which are administered by the Department of Higher Education.

Teachta Carthy said:

“I welcome the response from the Minister for Agriculture that Teagasc is looking to put in place dedicated supports for these students by the end of the year.

“For some time now, I have been calling on the Ministers for Agriculture and Further Education stop the exclusion of these students.

“Students who choose to study agriculture are as deserving of supports as all others.

“I do however have concerns that this scheme has been pulled together at very short notice and may pose a challenge in the delivery of these funds by the end of the year.

“Only last month the Minister stated to me in response to a parliamentary question that he was engaging the Minister of Higher Education to make the case for the inclusion in the new Covid-19 Support Scheme, and made no reference to student hardship supports.

“Given that the most recent update indicates that the Department of Agriculture is now instead planning to directly fund these students via comparable schemes administered by Teagasc, and via funds not accounted for in Budget 2021, it seems these plans have been pulled together at very short notice and will require a brand new system of administration.

“It is critical that the Minister works with Teagasc to ensure that these student supports can meet the Department’s goal of delivering support to students this year.

“Direct funding via the Department does also offer the opportunity to permanently secure these supports.

“At tomorrow’s meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, I intend to ask the Minister to commit to this permanent funding, and seek an update on how the outworkings of administering the scheme are progressing.”

ENDS

Irish Unity makes economic sense – Matt Carthy TD

Irish Unity makes economic sense – Matt Carthy TD

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has said that a United Ireland will make economic sense and help deliver the full potential of a great nation. He was speaking as his party published a discussion paper entitled ‘The Economic Benefits of a United Ireland’.

Deputy Carthy commended his Sinn Féin colleagues who developed the document under the leadership of party Finance spokesperson, Pearse Doherty TD.

Teachta Carthy said:

“Discussions about the constitutional future of our island are becoming more real by the day.

“They have been turbocharged by Britain’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016; a decision that has exposed the democratic deficit at the heart of partition. Despite the majority of the electorate in the north choosing to remain in the EU, they have been dragged out against their will. So much for the principle of consent!

“That is a decision that will have long-term consequences for the whole country but for the northern economy in particular.

“But Brexit is just the latest example of a status quo that is not working.

“The truth is that partition is a failed experiment.

“Before partition, the North East was the industrial engine of the island, accounting for 80 percent of industrial output. The centre of the Irish economy was in Belfast.

“Today, southern exports of goods and services dwarf those of the north.

“In terms of economic output on a per capita basis, the north stands at £26,000 while the south stands at €40,000.

“When we compare the southern state with Britain, we observe a similar trajectory.

“Since 1970, the south has seen a rapid improvement in living standards; from 70% of the EU average to a standard of living now well above the European average. In comparison, the British economy has seen the standard of living, relative to other European countries, stagnate since 1970.

“The reasons for this are well known; an industrial policy which abandoned high value manufacturing in its regions to pursue a financial services model concentrated in London with a low-value services sector everywhere else.

“This has been coupled with a lost decade of austerity following the Great Financial Crash.

“The British government’s policy choices have ignored regions outside of London. They have certainly ignored the north of Ireland.

“And it is the London government that retains control over economic policy in the north.

“Despite the devolution of certain powers; control of fiscal policy, tax and spending, the ability to borrow in order to invest, ultimately remain the preserve of the British Exchequer.

“The north of Ireland suffers the consequences of this reality but all of Ireland pays the price.

“There is an alternative to the Union; an alternative to Brexit.

“Irish unification is a guaranteed path back to the European Union; it gives the whole country a chance to steer our own course; to enjoy the dynamism of an all-island economy and to work together for our mutual benefit.

Subvention

“Of course, whenever discussion of Irish Unity begins, the question of the subvention is often raised – this is the difference between the revenue raised and expenditure attributed to the north.

“It is telling that the most oft-used argument in favour of the union with Britain is that the north is such an economic basket case that it is unaffordable.

“This is not a strong argument.

“Instead, it exposes how weak the northern economy has been served by Britain.

“The subvention is real, but before we consider it, or what unification would “cost” the south as a result; it is important to understand what it is made up of – what items would remain in a United Ireland and what items would not.

“Rather than the regularly cited figure of between £9 and £10 billion the truth is that, when you take out the north’s contribution to things like the British military and royal family the overall subvention is a fraction of that.

“And, of course that is before we consider the huge economic driver that Irish Unity would present.

“While the purpose of the Sinn Féin document is not to pre-empt, predict or predetermine the exact economic model that will be pursued in a unitary state, it does outline some of the great opportunities that will present.

“As we emerge from Covid-19, we are reminded of the failings of a country of just over 6 million people operating under two back-to-back economic systems.

“Our country deserves better, and a United Ireland offers so much more.

“Irish unity would allow for coordinated investment and development; something the Border region has been missing for a century.

“Irish unity would utilise economies of scale; allowing one economy to develop rather than having two economies compete.

“The current trajectory of the all-island economy attests to these opportunities.

“The total value of cross-border trade now stands at more than €7 billion every year.

“As is now well known in light of much debate Brexit’s impact on cross-border supply chains; a greater number of businesses now trade from North to South than to anywhere else, including to Britain.

“With partition, that potential will never be fully unlocked, with border counties, towns and economies suffering as a result.

“Irish unity would secure our place as an open, outward-looking, progressive island at the heart of Europe.

“With the twin threats of Brexit and Covid-19, there has never been a better time to take stock, talk to one another, and consider our future together and of our future generations.

“Our discussion document will contribute to that discussion. It’s time for the Irish government to join us in start planning for a better, a fairer and a united Ireland”.

The Sinn Féin document ‘The Economic Benefits of a United Ireland’ can be accessed at www.sinnfein.ie or in hard copy from any party representative.

ENDS

HSE tell Carthy that Carrickmacross has ‘adequate number of GPs’

HSE tell Carthy that Carrickmacross has ‘adequate number of GPs’

The HSE has told Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, that there are no plans to recruit additional GPs in the Carrickmacross area, claiming that the area is adequately served at present.

Deputy Carthy had asked Health Minister, Stephen Donnelly, to outline whether he had proposals to increase the number of GPs in South Monaghan but the Minister had referred the matter to the HSE.

In a written response received last week by Deputy Carthy from Mr. Dermot Monaghan, Head of Service, Primary Care, for Counties Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal the HSE contended:

“It is the HSE’s view that in comparison to other towns in the region Carrickmacross has an adequate number of GP’s per head of population. In addition to the long standing Group practice, you may be aware that in recent years a new single handed practice opened in the town. We are not recruiting in Carrickmacross as no vacancy exists there currently”.

This week Teachta Carthy said:

“Carrickmacross has always been well served by hard-working and dedicated GPs and support staff. In recent times the workload at GP practices has intensified not least due to the additional complications brought on by Covid-19.

“GPs are at the coalface of the battle against the Coronavirus. Aside from being the conduit for test referrals they are also burdened by the restrictive measures that are necessary to keep doctors, staff and patients safe.

“Over recent months, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have found it difficult to secure GP appointments and this has created natural consternation for them and their families. I am disappointed that the HSE have responded to these concerns in such a dismissive manner. The concerns raised with me are genuine and need to be addressed. I will be requesting that the Health Minister makes a personal intervention to ensure that GPs are allocated the supports that they require and that patients are provided with the assurances that they can get appointments when needed”.

ENDS

Matt Carthy raises ‘Bogus Self-employment’ with Revenue at Public Accounts Committee

Carthy raises ‘Bogus Self-employment’ with Revenue at Public Accounts Committee

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has said that the use of bogus self-employment is the most longstanding method deployed by some corporates to avoid paying taxes and to deny entitlements to their workers. He said that the practice breeched the social contract that was the bedrock of the social welfare system and also created huge difficulties for those workers who find themselves out of employment with no financial supports.

Deputy Carthy engaged with the chair of the Revenue Commissioners, Mr. Niall Cody, at the Public Accounts Committee in the Dáil last week. He said that if the issue of Bogus Self-Employment was not addressed then some large companies would expand their use of other, more elaborate, methods of tax avoidance and worker exploitation. He particularly raised the conditions within meat factories.

Exchange at Public Accounts Committee

Deputy Matt Carthy: I would like to discuss the issue of bogus self-employment and the impact it has on Exchequer funding. I wonder, first of all, if Revenue has an estimate as to the rate of bogus self-employment, or an estimate of what it costs the Exchequer?

Mr. Niall Cody (Revenue): We do not have an estimate of what it costs because, like any non-compliant activity and all of the tax gap, it is difficult to put an estimate on any of those figures.

Matt Carthy: I am sure that Mr. Cody has seen various estimates that have been put forward by other organisations and presented to other committees in these Houses. One suggested a figure as high as €1 billion. I have seen everything from €80 million to €1 billion. Is it something that Revenue prioritises?

I noted in one of Revenue’s briefing documents a reference to different types of intermediary-type practices that are now being used to absolve companies from paying adequate contributions to their staff. Bogus self-employment is probably the most long-standing of those practices. Will Mr. Cody categorise where the issue falls on Revenue’s list of priorities?

Niall Cody: It is important to put it all in context. There is bogus self-employment and then there is actual self-employment.

Matt Carthy: Absolutely.

Niall Cody: It is also part of an actual—–

Matt Carthy: To clarify, what we are talking about is people who work primarily or exclusively for one company but that company, through its arrangements, has standardised its employees as self-employed. We have seen instances of that in the construction and other sectors. That is what I am referencing.

Niall Cody: We have put a lot of work into addressing bogus self-employment. Our joint inspection units do regular site visits to the construction sector. As the Deputy mentioned, and as our briefing document stated, the system has evolved a lot. I have spoken to a previous configuration of this committee and to the joint committee on finance about bogus self-employment. The trend is very much towards company structures – personal services companies and managed services companies that are set up to provide the employment to the principal contractor through a company.

We have no legal entitlement to look through that corporate veil. We have carried out extensive projects in respect of those companies and their tax compliance. The matter was the subject of an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General a few years ago. We have done our exercises on medical services provided through companies and across the board. Part of the challenge is that there is no legal basis to look through the corporate structure—–

Matt Carthy: A test case was presented to the Oireachtas that had been made by the Department of Social Protection with the agreement of the Revenue Commissioners. It was done primarily in respect of the courier sector. I understand that practice has ceased. Will Mr. Cody confirm that and whether a cost associated with the test has been extrapolated? How much did it cost the State? Was there any legal basis for its implementation? I have found it difficult to find a legal basis for that test case having been sanctioned.

Niall Cody: I will have to get back to the Deputy about that. When he talks about a test case, I am not 100% certain. If he has a reference, it would help.

Matt Carthy: We will get that. It was publicised in the House.

Mr. Cody mentioned inspections or investigations within the construction sector. Will he confirm whether Revenue has carried out any similar investigations in respect of this issue within the meat-processing sector?

Niall Cody: What we do in the meat processing sector is keep an eye on the employment status. Most of the meat companies have employees or recruit through agencies. If they recruit through agencies, the agency has a role as the employer in that context. We are keeping a very close eye on it and pay close attention to what is said in this House about various practices. We are also very open to any information from trade unions and we are in regular engagement with various agencies around practices. The challenge is that it is a matter of contract law and sometimes the relationship is unequal. Unless we can get information that allows us to look beyond something, we are sometimes constrained.

The biggest driver, from a fiscal point of view, is the employer’s PRSI. That is the big saving, but other workers’ rights arrangements are not the subject of our control. Two years ago, I think, there was a consultation by the then Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Department of Finance, which we supported, and I think we gave the committee a link to the report and the documentation we provided. That highlighted the challenge, as has been experienced in other jurisdictions, where the legislation has looked at, effectively, a different type of worker and having a different set of rules—–

Matt Carthy: A particular type of company engages in this. Can I extrapolate from what Mr. Cody stated that he accepts there remains an issue with bogus self-employment?

Niall Cody: The relevant contracts tax was introduced in the construction sector in 1971 as a requirement in respect of subcontracting and its variants. This is a factor in all jurisdictions and will always be one we have to take care of. A commission on tax and social welfare is being set up and the area needs a lot of consideration.

Concluding, Deputy Carthy said:

Mr. Cody said that he would come back to us about bogus self-employment in writing. Could I prompt him to examine correspondence that was sent to this committee by Revenue on 9 August 2000? The reference I am told is PS 3422M/00. That correspondence enclosed letters dated 7 March 1997 and 3 April 1997 to K. Ryan & Co, which represented courier firms, an issue we discussed earlier. The Revenue letter to the Committee of Public Accounts stated that the letters outline the agreement reached for tax purposes. It might give Mr. Cody an indication of the issue raised by the Chairman and myself.

I reiterate that bogus self-employment is a crucially important issue because of the income that is lost but also because it breaches the social contract in which we are all engaged with significant repercussions. There has been significant political debate regarding pension age. If we do not take in enough PRSI receipts, it gives succour to those who want to force people to work longer.

I ask for a tough approach on the part of Revenue. If ten people working in the same place all have their accounts to Revenue presented by the same company and all have similar working hours and arrangements, Revenue can be fairly sure there is bogus self-employment. Likewise if somebody is working in a meat factory and earning the minimum wage, Revenue can be fairly sure he or she is not genuinely self-employed. If somebody coming from eastern Europe finds himself or herself working in a meat factory under a new company and he or she decides out of the goodness of his or her heart to give that company half of his or her wages, there is a problem.

ENDS

Carthy slams Government Housing policy at Public Accounts Committee

Carthy slams Government Housing policy at Public Accounts Committee

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, slammed the housing policy of successive government’s at a meeting of the Dáil’s Public Accounts Committee last week.

In an sometimes engagement with senior officials, including the Secretary General, of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Carthy criticised what he described as an ‘ideological’ driven approach that has prevented local councils from purchasing and building houses while spending Billions of euros in subsidies to private developers, landlords and speculators.

He also hit out at the current income limit thresholds which prevent families in need of housing support to even get on the housing list. He said that this was disenfranchising hard working families and he cited a family in Co. Monaghan that were caught up in the cycle of government housing policy.

Deputy Carthy opened up with his interaction by seeking clarification as to the additional homes that will be provided as a result of the governments expansion of the much-vaunted ‘single-stage approval process’.

Deputy Matt Carthy: I welcome our guests. I want to return to a point that had been raised by Deputy Imelda Munster with regard to the single-stage approval process. With much fanfare, the limit was increased from €2 million to €6 million. It has been indicated that there is only one project, which is in the early stages of that process. How many houses is that project expected to deliver?

Ms Mary Hurley (Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage): The limit, from €2 million to €6 million, would leave a maximum of 30 units. One of the things we have been trying to do in relation to that increased limit is to work with local authorities to bring forward applications, and there is a number of applications coming through the system.

In terms of the one-stage process, we know that there are 35 projects on site involving schemes that are under the €2 million ceiling. We know there are 20 applications in respect of €2 million.

Matt Carthy: Did the 35 projects avail of this single-stage application process?

Mary Hurley: At the rate of €2 million. Where the ceiling was €2 million, that has been raised to €6 million. What we have been doing in the Department is working with local authorities to bring forward applications. This new cap has only been introduced.

Side-by-side with that, it is probably worth noting, just in terms of the approval process and in terms of speeding projects up, that in tandem to those approval processes we have put in place frameworks. A volumetric framework has been put in place to support the deliver of the volumetric housing on a regional basis. Each region will have one of them. We have put in place internal layouts that will help local authorities design their house. We have put in place a really useful document, an employer’s requirement, which essentially sets out the quality around fixtures and fittings. In terms of approvals, the approvals are one piece but the other pieces are the supports that we provide to local authorities in trying to speed up matters

Deputy Munster spoke about the red tape. We are conscious in the Department to cut any red tape. That is why, in terms of the four-stage process, which is still there for projects over €6 million, we run a lot of those processes in tandem so that it is possible to come in with a joint stage 1 and stage 2. We are all committed to accelerating delivery.

Matt Carthy: I am a new Member of the Dáil but I was previously a member of a local authority. I was chairman of a housing strategic policy committee, SPC. I have heard this language from the Department since I cannot recall when and the problem is the outputs. Ms Hurley is talking about the different pieces. The piece the people are interested in is where are the houses. The output is getting worse as we are going on.

We are talking about all of these projects and about streamlining. We have a €6 million limit now that will allow local authorities apparently to enter and engage in a streamlined process that should be much quicker. That is the expectation. However, only one local authority is actively engaging with the Department.

Mary Hurley: No. There is one application moving through the process. All local authorities are engaged on that single-stage process and guidance issued to support them doing it. Applications are being prepared across the 31 local authorities.

Matt Carthy: How many applications are being prepared?

Mary Hurley: I do not have that figure to hand at the moment. That is in process.

Matt Carthy: It would be useful to get a sense of that.

Mary Hurley: We can certainly get that for the Deputy.

Mr. Graham Doyle (Secretary General): That changed in September, as the Deputy will be aware.

Matt Carthy: I understand that these things, unfortunately, do not happen quickly but we are in the middle of a crisis so they need to happen quickly.

I refer to HAP and the fact that 60% of outputs in 2019 were related to HAP payments. What was the budget for HAP in 2019?

Graham Doyle: One of my colleagues will get that.

Matt Carthy: Could the Department also give me the expected outturn for this year, and even for the next couple of years?

Mary Hurley: The budget for HAP in 2019 was €382 million and that provided supports to many households across the country.

Marguerite Ryan (Department): The budget for 2020 is €479 million. We expect it to come in in or around that and to deliver 15,750 additional supports this year.

Matt Carthy: And next year?

Marguerite Ryan: We expect 15,000 additional tenancies next year. It is slightly lower.

Matt Carthy: Slightly less than €479 million next year?

Marguerite Ryan: No, slightly fewer tenancies in 2021 than in 2020.

Matt Carthy: HAP, essentially, as we need to be clear because some people might not understand, is subsidising private landlords to sort the problem that was created because of a disastrous housing policy.

Graham Doyle: It is trying to bridge a gap between what an individual can afford and what is there.

Matt Carthy: It is because there is no social housing available and rent prices are too high to be afforded.

Graham Doyle: There is something in the order of 80,000 households under the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme. It is a question of how much social housing one can provide over a period to exit people from that and bring down that number.

Matt Carthy: When I was a local councillor in the early 2000s, a house in the area in which I grew up came on the market. Usually, in these cases, the local authority would quickly purchase the house. It was good value and a house built by the council. The Department refused to allow the council to buy it, however. It was bought for €42,000.

Since then, the owner of that house has been subsidised through rent supplement and HAP. The State has paid in value multiples of what it would have cost to build that house on day one. That was as a direct result of an ideological driven position that has been adopted by the Department. Has ideology been put aside?

Are we ready to go back to basics, namely local authorities building and purchasing homes which in turn will alleviate the pressures on rents and return them to a reasonable level? Are we at that point that we can address the fundamental core problem that lies at the heart of the reason we are in the middle of a housing crisis today?

Graham Doyle: There are 79,000 people on the HAP programme. To use that money to deliver houses, one is not going to deliver that many overnight. This is an issue which will change over time. Our objective is to bring down HAP over time as delivery comes through for exactly some of the reasons stated by the Deputy.

Matt Carthy: We are spending more money on this scheme than we are on providing houses.

Graham Doyle: We are not. One could not possibly deliver the same number of houses over people’s heads for that money.

Matt Carthy: Not in year one but over time.

Graham Doyle: Over time.

Housing lists ‘not reflective’ of real need

Matt Carthy: I want one point of clarification. In his response to Deputy Catherine Murphy, Mr. Doyle mentioned the local housing need as assessed by his Department in the Deputy’s constituency. Does that include people who are in receipt of HAP?

Graham Doyle: It does.

Matt Carthy: The figure of some 3,000 people with housing need was mentioned.

Graham Doyle: Yes, those are on—–

Matt Carthy: Does that include all HAP recipients also?

Marguerite Ryan: When a person takes a HAP tenancy, he or she comes off the waiting list. If he or she wants to go into what is called “long-term social housing” owned by a local authority or an approved housing body, then the person can go on the transfer list, which is maintained at local authority level.

Matt Carthy: So, does that 3,000 figure include those people?

Marguerite Ryan: No.

Matt Carthy: It does not include them? So, it only incudes people who have not even got HAP?

Marguerite Ryan: It is the net need.

Matt Carthy: Okay. That is crazy. That figure is not the housing need in that county. Most people who are in receipt of HAP are actually still looking for housing. That is not a long-term housing solution for those people. It should not be—–

Marguerite Ryan: The legislation from the Oireachtas says—–

Matt Carthy: The legislation might say whatever it says but that does not—–

Graham Doyle: The legislation—–

Matt Carthy: The legislation does not reflect the housing need in any county because we are talking about thousands of people who are in precarious accommodation, whatever way one looks at it, and it is not a long-term solution to their housing needs. To even suggest that it is a solution is spurious. The Chairman spoke of—–

Graham Doyle: The legislation does say that it meets the housing need.

Matt Carthy: The legislation is an ass.

Graham Doyle: I have to work to the legislation.

Matt Carthy: The Chairman referred to social mix in areas, be they geographical or otherwise. I remember a time when local authority housing estates had a great mix. There was the single parent, the person who was unemployed, the factory worker and the local small business owner such as a builder or whatever. We do not get that any more. Those people cannot even apply because of the income threshold limits.

I am currently dealing with a couple who have five children. They are in the exact same circumstances as me with regard to the family make-up. Does Mr. Doyle know what the income threshold is above which they cannot apply for social housing in County Monaghan?

Graham Doyle: Could the Deputy tell me?

Matt Carthy: It is €30,000. For that family to be able to get a mortgage of any description, their income collectively between the two parents would need to be significant.

Between €30,000 and the higher figure mentioned, what solution would Mr. Doyle’s Department see for a family in that situation?

Graham Doyle: I would be happy if one of my colleagues took that question. As I said in my introduction, I am very new in this role and I am interested in looking at some of those issues. Perhaps Ms Hurley may have some experience in this matter.

Mary Hurley: I presume the Deputy is referring to the income bands for eligibility for social housing. There are three bands. Deputy Carthy’s constituency of Cavan-Monaghan falls into band 3. That band is based on an assessment conducted by the Housing Agency. The income eligibility bands are being reviewed at the moment and issues have been raised by both Deputy Carthy and the Deputies in his constituency as to the bands in that constituency.

Matt Carthy: If I may, I will give a sense of what I am talking about. We will take a married couple, where the husband is one of the hardest workers one could ever meet and who bursts himself and is out day and night trying to look after his family. His wife is a carer for one of the children and is at home.

They are crippled by rent. Every single year their rent goes up. I have lost count of the number of places they have had to move to. They have been to every single financial institution imaginable trying to see if there is some mechanism by which they can own their own home.

It is a no-go and yet, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage says they are not in need of housing because they earn in the region of €40,000. They would be ideal local authority residents. One must remember that there is often an insinuation that people who are in local authority houses somehow get a free house. They pay rent in line with and relative to their income and it is far from a free house.

At the moment the only people who are getting free houses are the developers and the speculators who are drawing down this year €479 million in HAP payments. This system is absolutely rotten and needs to be changed.

ENDS

Sinn Féin attempt to stop ‘Old Boys Club’ lobbying frustrated by government

Sinn Féin attempt to stop ‘Old Boys Club’ lobbying frustrated by government

Cavan Monaghan Sinn Féin TD, Matt Carthy, has accused the government of ‘reverting to form’ when it comes to political lobbying and appointments.

He was speaking after the government frustrated the passage of legislation that would make it more difficult for former Ministers and office-holders to engage in lobbying. The legislation, drafted by Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty and Maireád Farrell would also have empowered the Standard in Public Office Commission to enforce the existing regulations, something they have sought for years.

When the legislation came before the Dáil last week government representatives voted to delay the legislation for a further nine months before it can be even discussed in committee.

During the debate, Deputy Matt Carthy, said that this delaying tactic was typical of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael’s approach to transparency.

He told the Dáil:

“On 8 February, when voters went to the polls, a large proportion of them voted for a new direction.

“They voted for a new direction in housing policy. They voted for universal healthcare. They voted for the age of retirement to be maintained at 65. Above all, they voted for change.

“Part of that change undoubtedly meant a break from the old, stale insider politics that has defined successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments.

“Following the election, those two parties, rather than recognising the appetite for change, came together to deny it.

“Far from breaking with the practices of the past, from the golden circles and the revolving doors, the practices of the past have instead become the hallmark of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael present.

“From the appointment of judges to the refusal of Ministers to hold themselves accountable to the Dáil, from the backroom deals with the bankers, vultures and insurance industry, to the side-room deals that see some lobbyists get confidential documents from the heart of Government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are carrying on as they always carried out, but now they are doing it together and arguably more blatantly than ever.

“The Sinn Féin Bill seeks to prevent a situation whereby Fine Gael Ministers at the Department of Finance can move seamlessly into lobbying roles for the bankers and vultures that they were supposed to regulate. It calls for a cooling-off period of just two years, hardly a punitive measure but vitally important if citizens are to have confidence that the decisions made by the Government are made in the public interest.

“In fact, this Bill provides for measures that the Standards in Public Office Commission has been calling for since 2003 in some instances. There have been several promises, pledges, considerations and reviews in the intervening years.

“The Government’s response was to have yet another review. It is not good enough.

“The government can try to obstruct and deny change and might even succeed for a while, but it will only be for a while, because the appetite for change has grown since February and will continue to grow every day until every revolving door has been shut and the rotten, shady, insider deals are brought to an end.”

ENDS

Government decision to tax PUP payments ‘a smack in the teeth’ – Matt Carthy TD

Government decision to tax PUP payments ‘a smack in the teeth’ – Matt Carthy TD

The government decision to retrospectively tax the PUP payments received by people who lost their jobs as a result of Covid-19 has been described as a ‘smack in the teeth to those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic’ according to a local Sinn Féin TD.

Cavan Monaghan Dáil Deputy, Matt Carthy, remarked that it was a pity that the government never saw fit to retrospectively tax banks or vulture funds. He has called on the government to scrap its plans to retrospectively tax the Pandemic Unemployment Payment which would see workers in receipt of the payment accrue tax liabilities of upwards of €1,470.

Teachta Carthy said:

“This payment was introduced as an urgent needs payment making it tax exempt under Irish law. The government has now decided to retrospectively levy a tax on this payment from when it was introduced in March of this year.

“This really is unprecedented – I am not aware of any other instance where the government has sought to retrospectively tax people for an emergency payments. Certainly they never saw fit to retrospectively tax the profits of vulture funds or banks who managed to avoid millions in taxes through special measures provided by government.

“Not only is this in breach of Irish law, it makes no financial sense. Why would Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael seek to place a tax burden of this nature on ordinary workers as we emerge from a further lockdown and are trying to kickstart our local economies? It is a smack in the teeth to those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic.

“The PUP was put on a statutory basis in early August, but for the five months prior to this it was an Urgent Needs Payment.

“This is essentially a ridiculous tax on unemployment.

“Workers and families, who through no fault of their own had to rely on this payment to pay their rent and mortgages, to feed and clothe their families, and just make ends meet deserve a basic level of fairness from their government.

“A tax on unemployment in the middle of a pandemic that has shuttered countless businesses simply points to a government out of touch of where the rest of society is at.

“The government needs to reverse this farcical tax immediately”.

ENDS