Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 2024

Two multiagency task forces have been set up in this city in recent years, one in the north inner city and one in Cherry Orchard. On both occasions, I welcomed those multiagency task forces, but I also pointed out that one of the areas with the most deprivation in this city is the Liberties and Dublin 8. I highlighted the need for us to focus on this area where there is intergenerational poverty, drug abuse, crime, etc. That is impacting the community, and without a multiagency approach, the situation only continues in that cycle. Most of those who were out canvassing for parties during the recent election campaigns will have seen for themselves again, if they needed to, the level of poverty and the level of intimidation by drug gangs in certain parts of the south inner city.

The community looks on and sees all these bright ideas and new apartments being built in the city while they are being asked to live in squalor and to put up with intimidation day in and day out. There are scenes where gangs are taking over whole blocks of apartments and ruling the roost. If this means there is a problem in terms of crime, that needs to be addressed by An Garda Síochána. If there is dilapidation of the flat complex, that means the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the local authority need to take steps. In terms of education too, children are also growing in poverty and seeing for themselves crime occurring on an incredibly open level. Masked gangs are permanently in situ in their flat complexes or on the streets and no action is taken. This is not the way to have children growing up and a community looking forward.

Last week, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I attended a protest with the community outside the community centre on Donore Avenue, which was burnt down in a fire three years ago and has been sitting empty since. Now, that is a problem for Dublin City Council and not one for here, but it is a major one and is emblematic of much of what is happening in the south-west inner city. Even when services are provided, they are left to decay and fall apart. When they fall away, they are not replaced.

All of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh said about problems was very true in respect of intergenerational crime and drug use. All these problems, however, are compounded by a lack of services, including basic facilities such as playing pitches. There are no playing pitches in Dublin 8. How can we have a sports-based intervention to keep kids on the right path, as the locals are calling out for, if we do not have playing pitches? There is an absolute lack of services. I tabled a Topical Issue matter for debate here two weeks ago on stalled regenerations in the area such as the Oliver Bond and Dolphin House flat complexes. Both projects seem to have utterly stalled.

When we take account of the problems and what seems to be a very lacklustre response to them, we can see that a multiagency task force is absolutely essential. We have asked this question of the Department of Justice because it oversees the other multiagency task forces we have referred to, but we could have asked for a Minister or Minister of State from any Department to address this matter because these problems are so cross-cutting and interrelated among many Departments. This is another reason we need the multiagency task force to help to knit together this response. The people of the south-west inner city are crying out for this response. When we stood on the street with the community at that protest at the community centre, this was a clear ask from them. Other areas of equal or less deprivation are getting this response, so why are we not getting it?

On behalf of the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, I thank the Deputies for raising this. It is essential that people feel safe and are safe in their local communities, and Dublin 8 is no exception. Dublin city, and its surroundings, is a hive of business and tourism, particularly at this time of year. There is also a strong, vibrant community created by local residents. We want every part of the city to be a safe space for people to live and work in, and to visit.

As Deputy Costello just said, community safety is not solely the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, her Department or An Garda Síochána; rather, it is a whole-of-government responsibility. The development of new community safety partnerships will bring together all the relevant State agencies, councillors, community groups and residents to develop new community safety plans. Pilots have operated in three areas ahead of a nationwide roll-out this year.

The Government is committed to taking action to tackle crime across our country. This includes giving An Garda Síochána the tools and technology to fight crime in a digital era by rolling out improved CCTV, as well as body-worn cameras, the pilot scheme for which launched in Store Street Garda station on 30 May; doubling the maximum sentence for assault causing harm to ten years; and giving local people and local representatives a real say in how they can make their communities safer through the new local community safety partnerships.

I am assured that the distribution of gardaí is kept under review by the Garda authorities in light of any emerging crime trends or policing needs. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, was in Templemore last Friday for the attestation of 157 gardaí, and I can confirm on her behalf that 103 of those gardaí have been posted to Dublin Garda stations. An Garda Síochána maintains a proactive approach to policing the city to reduce crime and to keep people safe. Members of the Garda mounted unit, Garda dog unit, the armed support unit and the Dublin Metropolitan Region roads policing unit all support Operation Citizen by way of high-visibility beat and mobile patrols, particularly at weekends and in support of organised events. The Garda national public order unit is also available to support regular units and has been recently issued with larger capacity incapacitant spray as well as smaller public order shields.

In addition, Operation Limmat is the Dublin metropolitan region’s public order strategy. It promotes a pro-arrest and early-investigation approach to incidents of assault, together with driving high-visibility policing in public places to act as a deterrent to prevent and reduce assaults and public order offences in the region. Operation Irene has also commenced in the Dublin metropolitan region and runs from 1 June to 1 September. This is a multiagency operation with the key objective to prevent and detect antisocial behaviour and combat underage alcohol consumption and the consumption of alcohol in public places through the enforcement of legislation regulating the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol. The ultimate aim of the operation is to enhance community safety and confidence.

The last point is not, in some ways, relevant if it is concerned with alcohol. The consumption of drugs on a massive scale is the problem here. I invite any Deputy to visit some of the flat complexes just to see the level of sale and consumption of drugs and the intimidation that goes with it.

The role of sports clubs is very important. They can divert young people away from crime and drug-taking, and I would encourage that. The area is great, one of the best communities going, but there is an element that is intergenerational at this stage. The crime gangs people hear of in the media started from there and spread across the city. They need to be tackled head-on. There is no sense of urgency. The hall that Deputy Costello mentioned is closed four years and there is no urgency to get it open again. Other halls have also been closed. A sense of urgency is needed to properly address this. That is why we ask for a multiagency task force.

The Minister of State said community safety is everybody's responsibility, and it is, but when something is everybody's responsibility, it can quickly become nobody's responsibility, particularly with Departments passing the buck from one to the other. That is why we need a multiagency task force to pull everyone together, as has worked effectively in other areas facing similar problems. Much of the Minister of State's response focuses on the policing response, arrests, equipment and sentencing, but we need a community development response alongside that. We need a youth work response and sports investment alongside the policing. This is why we need the multiagency task force. We need it to pull together all these disparate strands that are leaving the work to somebody else.

On behalf of the Minister, I thank the Deputies again for raising this issue. As I and both Deputies have said, community safety is a whole-of-government responsibility and it requires a multiagency approach. I agree with the Deputies that there are great communities in the area. They spoke of the role of sports clubs, which are important. I agree on addiction and dual diagnosis issues, which are profound everywhere at the moment.

Gardaí in Kevin Street are very active within the community, both from a community engagement angle and in terms of operations aimed at improving feelings of safety. These include high-visibility patrols in areas identified as having high levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, and operations targeting criminal elements within such areas. Gardaí have assured the Minister they will continue to commit district and divisional resources to disrupting and dismantling the illegal activities of individuals and work with key stakeholders in all communities where such activity is having a serious impact on the lives of the people.

I will take on board the Deputies' comments. They said a community development response is required. This response is from the Minister for Justice and will obviously focus on gardaí and the policing part of it. The Deputies also said there is no sense of urgency in dealing with the issues in the area. The approach being taken brings together the local community and local service providers under an independent chair to develop a community safety plan for their area and, more importantly, to work in partnership with the area. Politicians, including local authority members, are always to the fore in driving their community forward as best they can. I will bring the Deputies' concerns to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, including in respect of a multiagency task force for the Dublin 8 area.

In 2019, as an Oireachtas Member, I attended a meeting with the then Minister for transport, Shane Ross. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, was at that meeting as well. Mr. Ross essentially at that point signed off on State investment for Waterford Airport. We were told at that meeting - and I had been of the view for some time - that the airport had reached a crossroads and either the funding would come and the runway extension happen to give it a fighting chance to survive and get new commercial airlines and activity into the airport or else it would fold. There was no other option. "We have to extend the runway and it's all or nothing" is what was presented to us.

At the meeting, there was a proposal of a three-way arrangement between three local authorities in the region that would provide State funding, commercial and private investment and support from the Department of Transport. We heard in the meeting and it was subsequently reported in the media that there was strong pushback from officials in the Departments of Transport and Public Expenditure and Reform. We know that well in Waterford from a range of projects where we had to fight tooth and nail to get State funding over the line and to present business cases time and again before a decision was made.

On the airport, we are still here and still waiting. It was 2019 when the commitment was given. I accept other parties and stakeholders are part of the arrangement but for some time the private sector funding has been there, the local authority funding has been there and business cases have been submitted. There was confusion about this earlier this year but in December of last year a business case or proposal was submitted by the board of the airport to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan. My understanding is fresh information or an updated submission was given in April this year. Possibly since then, more information has been provided but there is still no decision.

I talk to the Minister for Transport when I get a chance, often on the corridors of Leinster House, and ask if there is any movement. It is our job as local politicians to move these issues on. The Minister of State, Deputy Butler, will agree that there is frustration in Waterford that no decision has been made. I cannot understand what is happening; nobody is telling us what is happening. There are different views and reasons given for the delay. Surely to God somebody should be able to make a decision to fund the airport or not. We cannot continue indefinitely with no decision on the future of the airport. It is one of the few airports in the State that does not receive substantial State funding because it is all conditional on this proposal going ahead.

It seems the biggest stumbling block is the Department of Transport, Minister for Transport and Government making a decision. When will the decision be made to grant funding for the airport? Has the Department met with the other stakeholders? If this was a three-way arrangement, surely the departmental officials and the Minister for Transport would meet local authorities providing some of the funding and with the private sector investment. It is important for the people of Waterford to fully understand what is happening. We are getting mixed messages and there is no certainty around when a decision can be made. It is reasonable to ask what is happening, who is meeting who and have the Minister and his officials met with the private investors putting money up and with the local authorities. More important, when will the application for funding be signed off on?

I thank the Deputy for his Topical Issue. As the new Minister of State at the Department of Transport since last Thursday, I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on this matter and engage on the Deputy's issue. The matter is as close to the Minister of State's, Deputy Butler's, heart as to the Deputy's and is of interest to the south-east region, public representatives and wider business and local communities.

Waterford Airport is owned by Waterford Regional Airport plc and, as well as general aviation services, operates a Coast Guard search and rescue base under a commercial contract with CHC Ireland. On a historical note of interest, the airport's potential is highlighted by the fact the first ever Ryanair commercial flight was from Waterford Airport to Gatwick 39 years ago next Tuesday - 8 July 1985. That has been a success story. Let us hope we can repeat the feat.

Waterford Airport was eligible for Exchequer funding under the latest regional airports programme, which ran from 2015 to 2019. There were difficulties because, following continued decline in demand for services from 2008 onwards, all remaining scheduled flights ceased at the airport in June 2016. Without those scheduled passenger services, the airport's operations failed to meet the connectivity objective associated with Government policy for the funding of regional airports. Policy on regional airports has always focused on optimising connections and connectivity. As a result, Exchequer funding is contingent on airports operating scheduled passenger services as part of their programme.

That said, it is recognised Waterford Airport has faced serious financial challenges.

I understand that, to avoid liquidation, the airport sought emergency subvention from my Department in December 2017. On foot of this and subsequent requests, emergency operational payments totalling €1.5 million were made to Waterford Airport, with the last payment made in 2020. This funding was provided on an exceptional needs basis, to allow time for the consideration of future options at the airport, including a proposal to expand its runway, as the Deputy has mentioned.

As members will likely be aware, in June 2019, the then Government gave an approval in principle of an expression of support for an expansion proposal at Waterford Airport and to provide Exchequer funding of €5 million towards a runway extension project.

The project was then estimated to cost €12 million and the €5 million Government support being sought at the time was contingent on local authority and private investment, necessary to complete the project, being committed and that any risks relating to cost escalation would be borne by the non-State investors. That is good housekeeping and good due diligence. The airport was required to submit confirmation of the local authority and private investment funding, as well as details of the project proposal to my Department for approval.

Despite engagement with the airport over the intervening period, this detail remained outstanding until 13 December 2023, when Waterford Airport submitted a development proposal to my Department. The costings from that proposal were substantially above the original estimated cost of €12 million, which is now closer to €27 million, or more than a doubling of the cost. This obviously deviates significantly from the original 2019 proposals. An early and positive assessment of the proposal is being sought by the airport, which is understandable. The Department prioritised the matter and completed an initial appraisal of the project in line with the public spending code and infrastructure guidelines. However, a number of clarification requests were issued, as the Deputy alluded to. Further information was submitted and received by the airport on 23 April. However, that was incomplete. Further matters were raised, which remained outstanding on 27 May. It is only in the past five weeks that the Department has had full information to decide on the matter.

I am aware that my predecessor, Deputy Jack Chambers, the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, and the recently retired Mr. Michael Walsh of Waterford City and County Council had a recent meeting to discuss the matter. I assure the Deputy that my Department is continuing to engage with airport management to bring the matter forward, but he will understand that information is power. Without information, it is difficult for anybody to wield power. That information has only recently been received in the past month and we can now bring that forward and give it proper consideration.

I commend the Minister of State on his appointment and thank him for taking this Topical Issue.

The problem is that this has been an issue for the better part of ten years. I know that, in reality, this was substantially moved in June 2019 when former Minister, Shane Ross, and the Cabinet signed off on a proposal for €5 million. I accept the costs have escalated since. One of the reasons the costs have escalated is there has been no movement on the issue. If, in 2019, the proposal had been accepted, funded and we had all the legs of the stool in place at that point, we would be a long way in and I imagine the runway would have been built by now. Yet, here we are in 2024. Of course costs have escalated because as the Minister of State knows, there will be increasing costs for any building project that is five years late. I can point to any State project that has been delayed.

It is new information the Minister has given that additional information was given on 27 May, which I welcome. The question now is: at what point are we going to continue to have discussions about the business case? The Department received a proposal in December last year and additional information in April of this year. More meetings took place between Department officials and the board, and I welcome that. By the way, I fully accept that the Department has a job to do because it is signing off on taxpayers' money. I hope the Minister of State will also accept that there is a deep frustration in Waterford that there is no movement on this issue. They cannot see movement, at least. Given that additional information was given on 27 May, can he confirm that is the end of information being sought from the airport, that the Department has all the information it needs and now what needs to happen is a decision simply needs to be made? Can it at least be confirmed today that this is where we are at?

I thank the Deputy. A couple of matters arise. He characterised this as not quite a six-year delay, but a five-year delay from 2019 to 2024. It is fairer to say that it is a six-month engagement, given that a business proposal was received by the Department in December 2023. Elements were missing from that, which required revisiting in April 2024 and further information was received at the end of May 2024. In actual fact, if we look at timelines, it is a six-month engagement.

As the Deputy said, and I echo his sentiment, it is taxpayers' money. It should be subject to due diligence and all the checks and balances under the public spending code and infrastructure guidelines. Finance is a part of it, and the project cost has doubled. It is not the only part, by any means. Information is essential to do a proper, thorough and robust assessment. As an island, connectivity is essential for our economic development and we recognise the huge value of the aviation sector in supporting economic development, international connectivity and tourism in Waterford and the south east. I am very aware of the importance of the airport for all of those reasons.

Aviation fell off a cliff in the period between 2019 and 2024. Covid happened in 2020 and there were two years where we did not have planes in the skies at all. On the part of Waterford Airport, the wider system had other preoccupations in those years as well. I welcome the fact the project has restarted and the information was submitted last December, with further information since. The project has been prioritised by my Department and I give a commitment to follow up on that and take that from today. The increased Exchequer funding of €12 million being sought is being assessed and the proposal is being reviewed by my Department in accordance with its transport appraisal framework and infrastructure guidelines. In accordance with that framework, if a proposal seeks Exchequer funding that has a potential cost of €15 million or more, a sponsoring agency must produce a project outline document to be approved by the approving authority. There is a little more complexity to it. Given the increased costs, it comes into a different range in terms of approvals. That project assessment document will appraise the proposed scheme in line with national and local polities. As I have said, I hear what the Deputy and the Minister of State, Deputy Butler have said and I commit to investigating this further.

I congratulate the Minister of State on his elevation and new appointment.

Deputy Sherlock and I are here 12 months after bringing this issue up previously regarding the treatment of pensioners in An Post. It is always topical and it has come to our attention again, given developments in pay increases for An Post workers announced in recent months and other issues. What is rooted in all of this is the exceptionalism with which pensioners in An Post are being treated. This year, the CWU reached a two-year pay agreement with An Post that provided for an 8% increase, paid to workers in three phases, which is most welcome. However, only 2% of the 1 January 2024 increase will be pensionable for current workers and the extent to which the 2025 will be pensionable is uncertain. Why the pensioners are angry is there is absolutely no news about if or when the minimal increases in pensionable pay will be reflected in their own pensions. Why are they angry? They are angry because section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 provided guarantees that civil servants transferring to An Post would continue to have their pensions calculated in accordance with civil service rules. This is not happening. In a report to the High Court, Vodafone Ireland Limited v. Farrell & Ors, Mr. Paul Kenny, the former Pensions Ombudsman stated:

My understanding based on my experience is that ... pension increases in the civil service were regarded as, and were in practice, "automatic". That is to say, a Minister has never exercised his or her discretion in any way other than to grant increases in line with any salary increases.

An Post has repudiated such pay parity increases since 2008. Again, why the exceptionalism? There is a statutory obligation regarding mandatory increases in preserved pensions outlined in section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990, to revalue preserved pensions by the change in CPI, subject to a cap of 4%. The Minister for Social Protection has exempted the An Post main superannuation scheme from these obligations. Why is the Minister exempting An Post from its obligations when An Post increases pensions by less than a percentage point of the regulations?

I will quote for the record the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who replied to a Topical Issue on this subject when Deputy Duncan Smith and I raised it 12 months ago:

on 9 March 2023, An Post wrote to the Department seeking consent to the second phase of their current pay agreement which provides for a 2% increase in pay from 1 January 2023. In addition to this, on foot of a recent Labour Court decision, An Post also wrote to the Department on 9 March seeking approval to make increases to pensions in payment and deferred pensions of a 5% increase from 1 January 2022 and a 1% increase from 1 July 2023.

[...]

Circular 16/2021 states that pension approval requests should be submitted for approval well in advance of any decision to implement changes and acknowledgement of the necessary process that must be completed. In order to ensure that pension increases are not unduly delayed, it should be recognised that the time taken for the pension approval process is necessary to ensure that robust governance procedures are in place.

We have not seen any progress on this issue. I hope the Minister of State will not give exactly the same reply we received from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, 12 months ago. I hope the issue has moved on and that progress is being made.

I thank both Deputies for their kind wishes. I appreciate them. In response to Deputy Sherlock, John, Billy and Auntie Alice O'Brien and all the Mitchelstown clan are very proud indeed of my appointment. I thank him for acknowledging them.

I welcome the opportunity to outline the position on this matter. I have not had sight of the response the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, gave so I will outline my position, subject to revisiting it in due course. I look forward to engaging with the Deputies on the matter as it progresses.

Under section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, with the concurrence of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, approves any superannuation schemes submitted by An Post. The operation of the schemes is a matter between the management of An Post, staff representatives and the trustees of the schemes. The 1983 Act requires that, for civil servants who transferred to An Post on vesting day, 1 January 1984, An Post’s pension scheme must provide not less favourable conditions than those to which the members of staff were entitled immediately before the vesting day. Section 46 sets a minimum level of parity between the An Post scheme and the scheme that applied to staff members of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, as it was on the day before vesting day. Section 46 does not provide that the conditions in the An Post scheme must continue to match any subsequent improvements in pension conditions for the award of pension increases in the Civil Service. It was and is intended to be a transitional provision to ensure that transferring employees were no worse off on vesting day than they were immediately before the transfer. It does not give rise to an entitlement to pension increases other than those granted in accordance with the An Post superannuation scheme rules. Prior to vesting day, any increases to pensions in payment were discretionary. They were awarded at the discretion of the Minister for Finance. The rules of the scheme accurately reflect the pre-vesting day discretionary nature of pension increases in the public sector. The pension increase rule has remained unaltered since the commencement of the scheme.

An Post wrote to the Department on 3 April 2024 with an updated consent request seeking approval to increase pensions payments for 80 members of the An Post superannuation scheme who are aligned to the principal officer grade in the Civil Service. The 80 members in this cohort were former civil servants and are referred to collectively as the pre-1984 pensioners. An Post also wrote to the Department on 21 June 2024, seeking approval to increase pensions in payment for members of the An Post superannuation scheme by 2% per annum, with effect from 1 January 2024. In accordance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, An Post must seek ministerial approval for all proposals to increase pensions and deferred pensions for members of the An Post superannuation scheme. As per Circular 16/2021, all such proposals require NewERA’s views, as well as a business case setting out the strategic, policy and financial rationale for the proposed increase. Proposals should be submitted well in advance of any decision to implement changes, in acknowledgement of the necessary processes that must be completed and to ensure that pension increases are not unduly delayed. The time taken for the pension approval process is necessary to ensure that robust governance procedures are in place.

Following receipt of both proposals from An Post, the standard process is being followed. NewERA’s views and assessment are being sought as part of that consideration and the Ministers will then consider those proposals. There has been ongoing engagement with An Post on the matter. This is the same procedure that must be followed for any State body. It is not possible, therefore, at this point, to set out the specific timeframe within which the decision-making process will be concluded. However, I note the points made by the two Deputies and the understandable great interest and urgency of members of those schemes in it being expedited.

This is a paraphrasing of the same reply we received 12 months ago, in essence, using NewERA and saying it is kicking the tyres on this 12 months later. Does it take 12 months for NewERA to kick the tyres on such a proposal? The members of the scheme want and are entitled to answers. We want certainty from the Government on whether this will be paid.

The response, which is very similar to the response received 12 months ago, mentions section 46 setting a minimum level of parity between the An Post scheme and the scheme that applied to staff members as it stood on the day and that it does not provide that the conditions in the An Post scheme "must continue to match any subsequent improvements in pension conditions". However, as the former pensions ombudsman stated, and as I stated in my opening contribution, based on his experience, pension increases are in practice automatic and regarded as such by the Minister. This is the disconnect.

Last week, our news media were emblazoned with headlines that An Post revenue and profits increased in 2023. The CEO is very excited about the next five years and the growth of the company. That is fantastic and we are all delighted with that and want to see it, because all of us on every side of this House fall over ourselves to support An Post as a vital community organisation throughout the State, a lifeblood of the State. However, when we do so we must remember that An Post was built on these workers and pensioners. They are the company and they are not being treated fairly.

I did not even have time to bring up the class D PRSI contribution anomaly that exists for these pensioners. An Post has benefited from favourable employer PRSI contribution rates, whereas the pensioners are unable to claim a State pension because of their class D PRSI contributions. As I said in my first contribution, there is a whole degree of exceptionalism here that is militating against the An Post pensioners and it needs to resolved.

I have listened with interest to the Members’ responses. I appreciate and understand the degree of frustration the Deputies and those they represent feel. I will take this away, read into it further and revert to them.

The one point I will make is that I am told An Post engaged with the Department in April 2024 and again in June 2024 seeking approval for these increases. On that level, I am confused as to how this can be the same position as it was 12 months ago, considering there has been significant progress, or certainly engagement, during that time. An Post only asked for this in April and June 2024 so I do not know how it can be the same position as it was 12 months ago, but I am open to clarification on how that may have come about.

That is since June 2024, when the question was received from An Post. I hear the Members' points. I am not abreast of the issue of the class D PRSI contributions, but perhaps the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, could advise on that issue, which was raised by Deputy Duncan Smith.

I understand there are frustrations and I share the Deputies' admiration of the post offices, An Post and the service they provide at every level. I will certainly read into this matter further and I hope to be of further assistance to the Deputies.