Dáil Éireann

Vol. 736 Thursday, No. 3 23 June 2011

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Déardaoin, 23 Meitheamh 2011.

Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 ……………… 459 Order of Business ……………………………… 459 Visit of Northern Ireland Assembly Delegation …………………… 463 Order of Business (Resumed) …………………………… 463 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee …………………………… 467 Committee and Remaining Stages ……………………… 481 Ceisteanna — Questions Minister for Justice and Equality Priority Questions …………………………… 563 Other Questions …………………………… 571 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 584 Adjournment Debate School Staffing ……………………………… 584 School Accommodation …………………………… 586 National Monuments …………………………… 588 Missing Persons ……………………………… 590 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 593 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Déardaoin, 23 Meitheamh 2011. Thursday, 23 June 2011.

————

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 An Ceann Comhairle: Before coming to the Order of Business, I propose to deal with two notices under Standing Order 32.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise an issue of national importance, namely, the proposed extradition to the USA of an Irish citizen, Seán Garland; the politically motivated accusations that have been made against him; and the warrant issued against him, which was processed in camera by a US grand jury, a process which is universally discredited. The US justice department is persisting with its accusations even though it has failed to produce any evidence that Mr. Garland has been involved in illegal currency.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Martin Ferris: If the extradition of Seán Garland is allowed to proceed, it will be a miscarriage of justice.

An Ceann Comhairle: Further comments are not permitted under Standing Order 32.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I appeal to the Tánaiste, in particular, to ensure that will not happen.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: The Tánaiste might have a view on it.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I am quite certain he would have a lot of company. Perhaps half the Cabinet would be on the plane on the way back with him.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must stick to what he submitted to my office. The matter he has raised is not in order. As Deputy Crowe is not in attendance to pursue his notice under Standing Order 32, we will proceed to the Order of Business.

Order of Business The Tánaiste: It is proposed to take No. 15a, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011 — motion to instruct the committee; and No. 19, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011 — Committee and Remaining Stages. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. and business shall be interrupted 459 Order of 23 June 2011. Business.

[The Tánaiste.] on the conclusion of Question Time, which shall be taken for 75 minutes on the conclusion of No. 19, and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes and the order shall not resume thereafter; No. 15a shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 65 minutes, with speeches being confined to the Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time and whose speeches shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, and the Minister or Minister of State being called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes; and the Committee and Remaining Stages of No. 19 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance.

An Ceann Comhairle: There are three proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. today agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 15a agreed?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is not agreed. The Government had plenty of time to prepare the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011. The idea that amendments which require a Second Stage debate have to be introduced at this stage is objectionable. I object in principle to what is going on here. If we call a vote, I do not doubt that the Government will steamroll its way through. We would use valuable time that the Opposition needs to tease out this Bill with the Government on the floor of the House. While I object to this legislation being taken in this way, I will not call a vote on the matter because I do not want to waste valuable time that could be used to debate the Bill. The Government is steamrolling everything through, despite its promises of Dáil reform.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Brilliant.

The Tánaiste: The Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform has briefed the Opposition spokespersons on these amendments. The two amendments relate to matters that were outside the terms of the original Bill. One of the amendments relates to how some NTMA staff in the Department of Finance are affected by the splitting of the Department. The other amendment clarifies the functions of the Revenue Commissioners and gives them more independence in certain areas. I do not think there is any major issue in relation to those matters.

Question, “That the proposal for dealing with No. 15a be agreed to”, put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19 agreed?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No. I have the same objection in this case. It is the same problem. We were told there would be no guillotines. We were told extra sitting days would be provided for in order that matters could be teased out.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Where were the Deputy and his colleagues yesterday?

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not need Deputy Buttimer’s help. Every morning it is the same.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: If there is no guillotine—— 460 Order of 23 June 2011. Business.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not need it.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Where were they yesterday?

Deputy Dara Calleary: We were bored of listening to the Deputy.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is in principle objectionable——

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: They were missing in action.

Deputy Barry Cowen: Take a break.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——that the Opposition will not have time between the Committee and Report Stage debates on this Bill. I believe Report Stage should be taken next week. Will the Tánaiste agree to Committee Stage being taken today and a gap being provided for before Report Stage is taken next week? Having waited more than 100 days to get this far, I cannot understand why another four or five days would make a material difference. Why can we not provide for full and open debates and appropriate gaps between the various legislative stages, which is what the Government said it would do when it was in Opposition?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: We oppose the imposition of a guillotine on this Bill, just as we have done previously. Yesterday, we opposed in principle the proposal to impose a guillotine on the Finance (No. 3) Bill 2011. We saw what happened at the end of that debate.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: There was no one there.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: When legislation is supported by the House, there is no need for Deputies to continue to waffle about it. There was no need to provide for a guillotine on yesterday’s Order of Business. Similarly, we oppose in principle the imposition of a guillotine on this significant Bill. The Department and the Minister do not know the full outworking of the separation of the various Departments. We will not be able to have a proper discussion on the Committee Stage amendments that have been tabled. The debate is being stifled. It is not a good principle. The Government gave a commitment not to impose guillotines. Sinn Féin opposes the imposition of guillotines. This is happening far too often. The Government is introducing guillotine after guillotine on debates. In some cases, no guillotine is required. It is wrong to ask us to conclude our debate on this legislation at 5 p.m. There is no reason we cannot stay here later, if required, to deal with the Committee Stage amendments that have been tabled. We should take Report Stage at a later date. That would give us time for the necessary consideration of the information the Minister will provide in response to our queries later today.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Deputy Doherty will be in Aughnacloy by then.

The Tánaiste: One of the issues raised most frequently by the Opposition with the Govern- ment on legislation was when the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform would be formally established and the legislation introduced. Several Deputies on the Opposition ben- ches have been asking us for some time to have this Department formally established and the legislation passed so that they could put questions to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and have the normal accountability for it. This morning we have the legislation before the House and the Opposition asks us to delay it. Deputy Ó Cuív does not want it concluded until next week. This is legislation that we were told he wanted to do quickly. 461 Order of 23 June 2011. Business.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: We waited long enough and we are prepared to wait another day or two to get it right.

The Tánaiste: There is plenty of time for this Bill to be fully debated between now and 5 o’clock this evening.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: If there is plenty of time, why the need for a guillotine? If there is plenty of time, one does not ask for a guillotine.

The Tánaiste: The period being allocated for debate of this one Department is far in excess of the period devoted to the establishment of the Government as a whole.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: That speaks volumes.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am now putting the question.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: A Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, there is no reply. Please resume your seat. You are not entitled to.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——the idea of a Committee and the Fourth Stage of a Bill is to allow for reflection between the two Stages of a Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please resume your seat. You know quite well there is no entitlement to a reply. You had your go, now we put the question.

Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 19, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011 — Committee and Remaining Stages, be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 39.

Tá

Bannon, James. Fitzgerald, Frances. Barry, Tom. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Breen, Pat. Flanagan, Terence. Broughan, Thomas P. Gilmore, Eamon. Bruton, Richard. Griffin, Brendan. Burton, Joan. Hannigan, Dominic. Buttimer, Jerry. Harrington, Noel. Byrne, Catherine. Harris, Simon. Cannon, Ciarán. Hayes, Brian. Carey, Joe. Hayes, Tom. Coffey, Paudie. Hogan, Phil. Conaghan, Michael. Howlin, Brendan. Connaughton, Paul J. Humphreys, Kevin. Conway, Ciara. Keating, Derek. Coonan, Noel. Keaveney, Colm. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Kenny, Seán. Costello, Joe. Kyne, Seán. Coveney, Simon. Lawlor, Anthony. Daly, Jim. Lynch, Ciarán. Deasy, John. Lyons, John. Deering, Pat. Maloney, Eamonn. Doherty, Regina. Mathews, Peter. Donohoe, Paschal. McCarthy, Michael. Dowds, Robert. McFadden, Nicky. Durkan, Bernard J. McGinley, Dinny. Farrell, Alan. McHugh, Joe. Feighan, Frank. McLoughlin, Tony. Ferris, Anne. Mitchell, Olivia. 462 Order of 23 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

Tá—continued

Mulherin, Michelle. Rabbitte, Pat. Murphy, Dara. Reilly, James. Murphy, Eoghan. Ring, Michael. Nash, Gerald. Ryan, Brendan. Naughten, Denis. Shatter, Alan. Neville, Dan. Spring, Arthur. O’Donnell, Kieran. Stagg, Emmet. O’Dowd, Fergus. Timmins, Billy. O’Mahony, John. Tuffy, Joanna. Perry, John. Varadkar, Leo. Phelan, Ann. Wall, Jack. Phelan, John Paul. White, Alex. Quinn, Ruairí.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. McDonald, Mary Lou. Browne, John. McGrath, Mattie. Calleary, Dara. McGrath, Michael. Collins, Joan. McGuinness, John. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Cowen, Barry. Moynihan, Michael. Crowe, Seán. Murphy, Catherine. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Dooley, Timmy. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Ellis, Dessie. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Ferris, Martin. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. O’Brien, Jonathan. Fleming, Sean. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Fleming, Tom. Ross, Shane. Grealish, Noel. Smith, Brendan. Healy, Seamus. Stanley, Brian. Kelleher, Billy. Tóibín, Peadar. Kirk, Seamus. Troy, Robert. Kitt, Michael P. Wallace, Mick. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Question declared carried.

Visit of Northern Ireland Assembly Delegation An Ceann Comhairle: Before proceeding with the Order of Business, on behalf of the Members of Dáil Éireann I wish to offer céad míle fáilte, a most sincere welcome, to a delegation from the Northern Ireland Assembly led by Mr. Willie Hay, MLA, Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I express the hope that you will find your visit enjoyable, successful and to our mutual benefit. You are very welcome.

Order of Business (Resumed) Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: There is an important European summit today. The clár of the meeting is not substantial enough to deal with the major issues we face, especially in the financial area. We cannot do anything about that today, but I suggest the Taoiseach take up the opportunity to meet President Sarkozy at the meeting.

An Ceann Comhairle: This is the Order of Business relating to promised legislation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am coming to the point. 463 Order of 23 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: There are no Leaders’ Questions today.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Point taken. I also suggest the opportunity should be availed of to arrange a substantive meeting such as that offered by President Sarkozy between the Taoiseach and the President.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think you heard me.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Is it intended to have statements in the House next week on the summit? Perhaps the Taoiseach could come in at that stage and outline the reasons he has not availed of the opportunity to meet President Sarkozy.

An Ceann Comhairle: You must not have heard me the first time.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I did.

An Ceann Comhairle: If you did hear me, I ask you to respect the Chair. This is not Leaders’ Questions. This is the Order of Business dealing with promised legislation. If you wish to stick to the Order of Business, you may proceed. Thank you very much.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is also about——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not. I am telling you what it is about. Could you stick to the Order of Business, please? Thank you.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Agus an rud deireanach, ba mhaith liom fíafraí den Tánaiste, ó tharla go mbeidh Uachtarán Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh ag teacht anseo——

An Ceann Comhairle: The fact that you wish to speak in Irish in no way intimidates me. Would you please resume your seat?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——mholfainn go dtabharfaí cuireadh dó teacht i láthair an Tí seo.

An Ceann Comhairle: I find your behaviour most objectionable. When you are in here acting as leader of a major party, please adhere to the rules of the Chair.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: I call on the Tánaiste not to reply to something that is totally out of order.

The Tánaiste: This week’s business, a Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not on the Order of Business. It is not promised legislation. If Deputy Ó Cuív seeks a debate, he should go through his Whip. I will stick to the rules of the House. I call Deputy Pearse Doherty.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Yesterday, the Government announced that it would not impose cuts on existing public sector workers earning in excess of €250,000. The Government also announced that——

An Ceann Comhairle: You are also out of order.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: This relates to——

An Ceann Comhairle: No, you will not subvert the rules. 464 Order of 23 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I am asking about promised legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please proceed with it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The programme for Government has a commitment to reduce the public sector wages of high earners. Will legislation be brought forward for existing public sector workers earning in excess of €250,000?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is this promised legislation?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I put it to the Tánaiste that there is a mechanism, used in the Finance Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle: Is there promised legislation? There is no promised legislation, Deputy. Please resume your seat.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It referred to excess banking remuneration and a charge could be imposed on existing public sector workers who are earning in excess of €250,000.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please resume your seat. Thank you.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The Government’s hands are not tied on this matter. What legislation will be brought forward to deal with this?

An Ceann Comhairle: There is no legislation promised here.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: There is; the programme for Government commits to this.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: This was promised in the programme for Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: Matters set out in the programme for Government are not the same as proposed legislation. Such matters do not always require legislation.

A Deputy: A promise was made in this Chamber.

An Ceann Comhairle: It was not promised in the Chamber. Has legislation been promised on this matter?

The Tánaiste: The Government has made clear its intention and determination to reduce the pay of higher paid public servants and chief executive officers and others on high pay in the semi-State sector. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has set out the manner in which this will be done both in respect of the proposals agreed by the Govern- 11 o’clock ment and the voluntary measures being introduced. In regard to the Judiciary, it is the Government’s intention to hold a referendum later this year to amend the Constitution to allow for reductions in pay. In respect of the detail, Deputy Doherty might pursue the matter by way of parliamentary question to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: On a point of order, will the Ceann Comhairle clarify whether promises made in the programme for Government may be raised on the Order of Business? My clear understanding is that such queries are permitted——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will answer that question when the Deputy resumes his seat. The programme for Government is not a catch-all for raising matters on the Order of Business. 465 Order of 23 June 2011. Business (Resumed)

[An Ceann Comhairle.] Items included in the programme are in order to be raised only if they have been elevated to the status of promised business such as legislation.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Therefore, none of them is in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is what is stated in Standing Orders.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Promises are made on a regular basis——

An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputies ask a parliamentary question and there is a reference to promised legislation in the Minister’s reply, the matter may be pursued on the Order of Business.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The programme for Government contains commitments——

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. He asked a question and I have given him the answer.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: With regard to the unfortunate experience of some investors in the banking sector in recent times, when will the collective investment schemes consolidation Bill be brought before the House? There is a need to ensure good and prudent investments are made by all institutions, including banking institutions, and individuals.

The Tánaiste: That legislation is expected next year.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach what advice the Govern- ment had received from the Attorney General in regard to a referendum being put to the people on the European Stability Mechanism, given that the latter constitutes an amendment to the Lisbon treaty. I understand the Attorney General has advised the Government that a referendum is not necessary. Will the Government publish this advice?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy’s question is not strictly in order, but I will allow it.

The Tánaiste: The Attorney General has advised that a referendum is not necessary in respect of the European Stability Mechanism. It is intended to have the matter dealt with in the House and it will be prepared in due course by the Minister for Finance. I am sure Deputy Mac Lochlainn joins me in welcoming the announcement this week that the Government has secured a significant change to the terms of the ESM which will allow Ireland to re-enter the markets at a much earlier stage by removing the preferred creditor status that was part of the original agreement.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The markets are going crazy. Irish bond yields are at 11.7%.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: Frankfurt won that one.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The voice of the markets.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: I have called Deputy Bannon. Members should show respect to the Deputy who is on his feet. 466 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

Deputy James Bannon: When will the Construction Contracts Bill 2010 be debated in the Dáil? This Seanad Bill was introduced in the Upper House in May last year. There is great public disquiet about the numbers out of work, particularly in the construction industry.

The Tánaiste: I understand it is intended to bring that legislation before the House in September. In the meantime the Minister of State is consulting the stakeholders concerned.

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 177, Standing Order 131 is modified to permit an instruction to the Committee on the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011, that it has power to make provision in the Bill to provide for a new Part 5 comprised of two provisions:

— to deem members of staff of the National Treasury Management Agency assigned to perform functions in the Department of Finance to be officers of the Minister for Finance for certain purposes;

— to provide for the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the performance of certain of their functions; and

— to make necessary consequential amendments to the Long Title.

The motion relates to proposed additions to the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011. I thank the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation in this matter. The additional provisions provide, first, for members of staff of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, assigned to the Department of Finance to be deemed officers of the Minister for Finance for certain purposes and, second, for the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the performance of certain of their functions. In regard to the NTMA, it is proposed to insert the following text into the Bill as a Commit- tee Stage amendment:

For the purposes only of any principle or rule of law relating to the performance of the functions of a Minister of the Government, any member of staff of the National Treasury Management Agency for the time being assigned to perform functions in the Department of Finance shall, notwithstanding section 7(4) of the National Treasury Management Agency Act 1990, be deemed to be an officer of the Minister for Finance.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the legal status of staff of the NTMA who will shortly be assigned on loan to the Department of Finance. As these staff remain employees of the agency and will not be civil servants during the period of their assignment, there is a need to ensure there will be no legal ambiguity about their ability to perform functions on behalf of the Minister. The NTMA has played a key role in developing and managing the Government’s proposals in tackling the banking crisis. In March 2010 the previous Government delegated a number of important banking system functions of the Minister for Finance to the NTMA. This led to the establishment of the NTMA banking unit to deal with the very significant banking sector challenges facing the State. It has now been decided that the NTMA banking unit should be assigned on loan to the Department of Finance to work more closely with the Minister for Finance, departmental staff, etc. in developing policies and measures to deal with the ongoing banking crisis. A memorandum of understanding to this effect between the Department and the NTMA is being finalised. 467 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

In his statement on banking made to this House on 31 March the Minister for Finance outlined a major restructuring of the banking system. He also announced a major reorganisation of the way the Government formulated its banking policy and how it interacted with the banks. The statement specifically provided for the creation of a more integrated decision- making structure among all relevant Departments and agencies with banking responsibilities. It also provided for the enhancement of the capacity of the Department of Finance in the area of banking policy and for ensuring the Department had appropriate policy responsibilities and financial market and banking expertise to advise the Government on potential systemic threats and measures to address them. The Government is committed to creating a more integrated, streamlined decision-making structure among all relevant Departments and State agencies in dealing with the financial crisis. The assignment of the NTMA banking unit to the Department of Finance forms a central part of this process. The NTMA banking unit contains highly skilled and capable people. It is responsible for a range of matters such as, for example, leading discussions on behalf of the Minister for Finance with senior management of the covered credit institutions on issues related to capital requirements and the restructuring of the banking system; project managing the capital injections into the covered institutions, including the appropriate timing and structures for any capital injections; overseeing the day-to-day legal, regulatory and corporate finance issues that arise in each of the institutions related to the ongoing restructuring of the system, and participating in negotiations with the European Union and the IMF on the terms of the programme of financial support for Ireland. The staff concerned will continue to perform these functions while with the Department but will now have a much closer involvement in the ongoing development of policy and decisions on banking and much closer interaction with the Minister and, where appropriate, the Central Bank. These NTMA staff will be required to carry out various functions on behalf of the Minister. Deputies will appreciate the importance of addressing legal uncertainty or ambiguity regarding the status of the NTMA staff and their authority to act on behalf of the Minister for Finance. All Members will be aware that the restructuring of the banking system involves complex legal issues and already has led to a number of challenges in the courts. Accordingly, while the proposed amendment is outside the scope of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011 which deals exclusively with the establishment of the new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Government considers it to be appropriate and essential that these amendments be now included in the legislation. I was asked by the Minister to include them because they are regarded as urgent and this was the most suitable vehicle to ensure their early enactment. The motion also seeks to introduce an amendment to the Bill on Committee Stage to place on a statutory basis the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the exercise of their statutory functions under the various taxation and customs enactments. The amendment will give effect to the recommendations made in the report of the Tribunal into Payments to Poli- ticians and Related Matters, better known as the Moriarty tribunal, which recommends that the principle or convention of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners be placed on the more robust status of a legislative provision. The Government has accepted and intends to enact this recommendation. The proposed provision consists of two elements. First, it consists of a clear and unambiguous statement to the effect that the Revenue Commissioners are independent in the performance of their functions under the various taxation and customs enactments. Second, the provision will ensure that neither article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923 nor section 9(3) of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 can apply to the Revenue Commissioners in the 468 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee performance of their functions under the various taxation and customs enactments. Currently, both provisions require the commissioners to obey all orders and instructions given to them by the Minister for Finance. The proposed provision will do no more that place on a statutory basis what is, in fact, the current long-standing practice in this area stretching back to the establishment of the Revenue Commissioners. Moreover, the changes will not apply to Civil Service regulation issues such as pay, conditions of service and other similar matters. Obviously, given my function, I was anxious to ensure no agency would be independent in determining its pay rates and that such determination would be supervised. At this stage it might be useful to provide some background information on this issue. The Board of Commissioners known as the Revenue Commissioners was established by the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923 to exercise in the State all the functions which were on 6 December 1921 exercisable in the State by the United Kingdom Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the United Kingdom Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The order was made by the Executive Council of Saorstát Éireann under section 7 of the Adaptation of Enactments Act 1922. Article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923 provides:

The Revenue Commissioners shall in the exercise of their powers be subject to the control of the Minister for Finance and shall obey all orders and instructions which may be issued to them in that behalf by the Minister for Finance.

This provision, on the face of it, appears to firmly place the Revenue Commissioners under the authority of the Minister for Finance as respects all their functions, including the application of taxation legislation by the commissioners to individual taxpayers. However, it was never intended that the provision should extend to giving authority to the Minister to interfere in individual cases. The then President of the Executive Council, Mr. W. T. Cosgrave, spoke in Dáil Éireann in the course of the debate on the Revenue Commissioners Order. On 20 February 1923 he stated at col. 1487, vol. 2 of the Official Report:

In [article] 9 it is pointed out that “The Revenue Commissioners shall in the exercise of their duty be subject to the control of the Minister for Finance, and shall obey all orders and instructions which may be issued to them in that behalf by the Minister for Finance”. In that connection I wish to draw the attention of the Dáil to the fact that in this clause the control of the Minister for Finance will extend to Civil Service matters, but will not affect the compu- tation of any individual as to his liability to any tax.

On the basis of this and other statements made during the years reaffirming the principle of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in their dealings with the tax affairs of any individual, that principle has acquired the status of a long-standing convention and practice. Section 9 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 contains, in subsection (3), a provision that replicates in large measure Article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923 and also places the Revenue Commissioners under the direction and control of the Minister for Finance. As the provision largely replicates the provisions of Article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923, the relationship between the two provisions is somewhat unclear. However, to provide certainty, it is proposed to modify this provision, as well as Article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923, to avoid any doubt as to extent of the independence of the commissioners, as intended by the Government, in their dealings with individual taxpayers. The Moriarty tribunal’s terms of reference, in subparagraph (m), referred to a possible recommendation “for maintaining the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the performance of their functions while at the same time ensuring the greatest degree of openness and accountability in that regard that is consistent with the right to privacy of compliant tax- 469 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] payers”. In his report Mr. Justice Moriarty acknowledges that the principle of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the exercise of their statutory functions regarding the application of taxation and customs legislation has been recognised and observed by all Govern- ments since the establishment of the commissioners and that it now has the status of a long- standing convention. However, Mr. Justice Moriarty went on to make the point that the independence of the Revenue Commissioners is critical to maintaining the integrity of the taxation system and that there should not be any room for doubt in relation to the equal treatment of all taxpayers, or the freedom of the Revenue Commissioners from any political influence or interference in the discharge of their taxation functions. On this basis Mr. Justice Moriarty recommended, “that an amending statutory provision would be appropriate in order to elevate the principle or convention of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners to the more robust status of legislative provision”. As I have stated, the amendment will only apply as respects the Revenue Commissioners performing their functions under the various taxation and customs enactments. The provision has no impact on the relationship of the Revenue Commissioners to Ministers in terms of Civil Service regulation, pay, conditions of employment or other similar matters. The Revenue Commissioners will also remain responsible to the Minister for Finance as respects the overall administration of the taxation and customs systems and will continue to provide advice and support on budgetary and tax and customs legislative matters. Having regard to the importance placed on this issue by Mr. Justice Moriarty and his recommendation that the long-standing convention be placed on a statutory basis, the Government believes that while the proposed amendment is outside the scope of the Ministers and Secretar- ies (Amendment) Bill 2011, it is appropriate and essential that the amendment be now included in the Bill. The reasons for this are, first, that the Ministers and Secretaries Act is the appropriate legislative home in which to include a high level statement setting out the relationship of the Revenue Commissioners with the Government; second, given the importance placed on this issue by Mr. Justice Moriarty in terms of the integrity of our taxation systems, the equal treatment of all taxpayers, and the freedom of the Revenue Commissioners from political influence or interference in the discharge of their functions, it is essential that the matter be dealt with at the earliest possible time. For those reason I hope the House will support the inclusion of these two amendments on Committee Stage to be dealt with later in the day.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Before I deal with the specific issues, I wish to discuss the circumstances that led to this issue being dealt with today. The two parties which form the Govern- ment could not agree on who would be the Minister for Finance so it had to be divided between both parties. This resulted in the decision to split the Department of Finance into two Depart- ments and consequent legislation. I note this legislation has been quite rushed. I do not object to the Government decision as it is has a right, as the democratically elected Government, to set up a new Department if it wishes. However, it has moved with haste which may result in it tripping up. This motion is a good example of how this legislation is being progressed through the House in an unplanned and disorganised manner. The Minister, Deputy Howlin states the Minister for Finance has asked him to include the amendments in this Bill as being the most appropriate vehicle. The House yesterday completed consideration of the Finance (No. 3) Bill which primarily deals with civil partnerships but if the Minister was of the view that these amendments are important and these issues are directly within the remit of the Minister for Finance, he could have included those amendments in that Bill——

Deputy Brendan Howlin: That was a money Bill and it would not be a money Bill if these were included. 470 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

Deputy Sean Fleming: The same case can possibly be made for the pensions Bill which was dealt with the previous week. I note there will be a guillotine tonight. However, the manner in which this legislation has been brought forward is not fair to the Members of the House. Deputy Howlin is a Minister and a former Leas-Cheann Comhairle and as such he will understand my point better than most and he will sympathise with the Opposition viewpoint. I note that a raft of amendments were tabled last week, including the two amendments being dealt with in this motion. At the last count, there are 130 amendments, at least 120 of which are in the name of the Minister and they cover 32 pages. The original Bill, as initiated, is only 24 pages long. I refer to the previous Dáil when the leader of the Minister’s party highlighted correspondence I had with the then Ceann Comhairle when I was Chairman of the environment committee. The then Minister tabled a great number of amendments. During the course of Committee Stage I could see that nobody in the room had any idea what we were discussing because there were so many amendments and no explanatory memorandum was available. I wrote a trenchant letter to the Ceann Comhairle because I viewed it as unacceptable that so many amendments were tabled because it compromised proper consideration of that Bill. A bad job was done by the Oireachtas because of those procedures. The then Ceann Comhairle and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges immediately saw the merit of my argument and Standing Orders were amended as a result. In the case of this Bill before us, when on Monday morning I saw the scale of the amendments I immediately contacted the Ceann Comhairle’s office and asked for an explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I was pleased when he immediately saw the wisdom of my request. He agreed we could not have a proper debate without the benefit of an explanatory memorandum and he requested that it be provided. I have not raised this matter in the House because it was all done properly through the procedures of the House. I intend no criticism of the staff of the Houses because I am sure they worked all the hours that God gave them in recent weeks in dealing with these amendments but it was 9 p.m. last night when the explanatory memorandum, 109 pages long, was provided to Members. I am not criticising the staff. It is a large document because it deals with each of the amendments which accounts for 30 pages and it includes 17 pages of new material and this was available to us last night. I can cope with that on Committee Stage and I suggest we can muddle through with Committee Stage today. However, we have now just received notice of 120 Government amendments which dramatically change a large part of the Bill and the Opposition has had no opportunity under the rules of the House to make any amendments to the Minister’s proposals in his amendments. The major portion of what is in front of us has only been seen for the first time and the Opposition has had no opportunity to put down amendments. The explanatory memorandum was only available last night and it is making it impossible for us to table amendments in advance of Committee Stage because this could not be done at 9 o’clock this morning. I could cope with this if Report Stage were taken next week and we would have the weekend in which to table amendments. My problem is not to do with the timetable for Committee Stage — we will get over the fact of the guillotine — but with so many Committee Stage amendments to deal with there will not be an opportunity for a separate Report Stage and Final Stage as these will all be rammed through on a vote at 5 p.m. We will then be left wondering in years to come why mistakes were made. We should have been given time over the weekend to draft amendments. We have waited three months for this legislation and another week would have been valuable to get everything right on Report Stage. I am sure that if given the opportunity over the coming days to review the Government amendments carefully, Fianna Fáil and the other parties in opposition would have tabled amendments on Report Stage. However, this is 471 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] being denied to us by the House. I know the Minister agrees with me but that is how the system works. I thought Dáil reform might have taken some of those matters into account. I thank the Minister for providing a briefing session for the Opposition on this significant legislation in the limited time available to us. We asked for information on the number of Acts to be amended by this legislation. We were informed by e-mail after 8 p.m. last night — I thank the officials for working so late — that the quantity of legislation amended was estimated at approximately 200 statutes by the Bill as initiated and by the amendments. We are now beginning Committee Stage with tabled amendments which will affect 200 statutes. This, in my opinion, is the largest amount of amendments to statutes we have ever dealt with. No Finance Bill amends 200 statutes but this is what is happening by way of amendments and the Oppo- sition has not an opportunity to table an amendment in respect of any of those amendments involving 200 statutes because Report Stage is being taken this evening. I do not know if it is in order. Perhaps the Deputy can contact his Whip to agree that we will finish Committee Stage here and get a revised order from the Whip in the early afternoon to take Report and Final Stages next week. I understand that we should receive four days notice of amendments. It would give us the opportunity to complete the Bill in an orderly manner. The Deputy may say the Dáil has discussed it openly, fully and thoroughly. I know he cannot be happy that we are not being given any opportunity to discuss the Bill. That is the background to why we are where we are. A great deal of business is being rushed. We could have waited one more week to finalise the Bill. I received a document comprising 105 pages at 9 p.m. last night and then received another two pages of substitute amendments which refer to typographical errors and different things. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle had to give special permission to table substitute amendments. It is an example of the rush we have today. We have to make that point going into this debate. The two items specifically referred to are included in the amendments, which are very much in order. On the two issues we are discussing, I have made my comments and will not have to repeat myself on Committee Stage. The NTMA was originally set up to manage the scale of the national debt many years ago. It was a good idea at the time. I met Mr. Michael Somers at the Committee of Public Accounts on several occasions. I was impressed by the quality of his contributions and his ability and have no argument with that. Not disclosing his pay scale is a bone of contention. We will discuss pay scales in a moment. The former Minister, the late Mr. Brian Lenihan, wanted to set up a banking unit in the NTMA and the new Minister wants to bring it into the Department of Finance. Now is the time to bring the NTMA back into the Department of Finance. That is my main point. Sometimes I wonder what the NTMA is doing because we are not in the bond markets and are not issuing Government bonds. Bonds are being redeemed but the IMF and EU agreement helps us to refinance them. The level of activity on the open commercial market means the NTMA has built up a tremendous level of expertise. We are locked out of it for the foreseeable future. With the financial crisis and the euro, some of the events are so large they are beyond the control of the staff of the NTMA. The NTMA should be brought back into the Department of Finance. During the banking crisis Mr. Somers pointed out that it was suggested to him that he put some money on deposit in Anglo Irish Bank and he put in a minimal amount, €40 million out of the billions he had. Why did he do that? He had no hard evidence; he had the same evidence as everyone else. His gut instinct told him something was not good about the bank. 472 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

People have asked if nobody knew on the night of the bank guarantee scheme that Anglo Irish Bank was a rogue and bankrupt bank. The Regulator, the Governor of the Central Bank and the Department of Finance did not seem to know that, yet the gut instinct of a man in a stand-alone agency told him that. I do not know if he was in the loop during the discussions because he was head of a separate agency.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: He would probably know more than I do.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I do not know, but the Deputy’s officials will be able to tell him about it. He was a man who probably had a better global view because he was dealing with the national debt and issuing bonds and knew the vibes about Anglo Irish bank globally. He was not part of the loop. He was isolated and insulated in his agency. It needed highly paid executives at the time to do a particular job and recruited him from financial services and the banking industry. He was paid high rates to take the job. There is now a good case for bringing the NTMA back into the Department of Finance which would bring him into its pay scales. It is wrong that the pay scales are exorbitant. It is difficult to get figures on them. Some people are probably receiving bonuses as well. I am not being small-minded. Due to the scale of the crisis and the fact that the Department of Finance is divesting itself substantially from public expenditure issues it should now be in a position to focus more closely on banking, Government and national debt and treasury management issues than it was in the past. It is something the Minister could usefully consider over a period. The Minister will always be asked why agencies are exempt, outside the system and have undisclosed pay scales. It is not good for the public service. I do not believe for a minute that the calibre of a person in the agency is better than that of a person in the Department of Finance or the Central Bank. I do not see why a person should be singled out for special pay rates. On the Revenue Commissioners, I asked a question during the briefing session yesterday. I was worried about its independence. It has operated very well. The Deputy gave us an outstanding history going back to 1923 and 1924. The convention applies consistently, something which Moriarty acknowledged in his report. There is never any interference in a case with Revenue. We all get queries from people who want to know if they have received their mortgage interest relief or how they claim tax relief in a med form. There is not a person in the country who has not had to deal with Revenue. It would be wrong if its independence was such that the normal avenues of communications would be cut off. I am pleased that will not now happen. The Bill is a sop to Moriarty and PR. We are not changing the substance of anything. Every- one has accepted there had been no interference. It might look good to put it on a statutory footing but it will not make any real change. Agencies will continue to be independent as they always have been. There will be room to table parliamentary questions and bring people before Oireachtas committees. People will also be able to contact the tax office on behalf of a constituent who is not able to talk to an official, the same way people need assistance to contact a health board or the Department of Social Protection. People may say that is not what Deputies are elected to do but with 300,000 public servants not every one of them is perfect. The system is not perfect in that many the people working in it and those in most need of help often require someone to help them to deal with organisations. I am happy that will not change. I welcome the fact that the Bill is being introduced but I seriously regret and object to the fact that we are being asked to complete Report and Final 473 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] Stages today and are not being given an opportunity to challenge any of the amendments the Deputy has tabled which affect 200 statutes. We needed a week.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Táim lán-sásta páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo. If Deputy Fleming could cope with the unorthodox process of this, he should spare a thought for a Deputy like me for whom this is the first experience of this process. It has been something of a baptism of fire. I am sure it pales to nothing in comparison with the officials who had to comb through such a vast number of statutes for what is undoubtedly a very complex and perhaps dubious escapade in terms of setting up the two Departments. That is the track we are on and so be it. I share to some degree Deputy Fleming’s misgivings about the process, but as the saying goes “we are where we are”. On the substance of the motion before us, I welcome placing of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners on a statutory basis. The Moriarty report and previous experience underline how absolutely critical it is that not alone do we have long-standing conventions or understandings, but as a matter of law independence is explicitly expressed and legally protected. I welcome that section of the motion. The Government is wise to take this action, notwithstanding that it arrived late on my desk as a matter for consideration. The Government is doing the right thing. I hope it changes matters. I do not wish to cast doubt on the procedures of the Revenue Commissioners but I hope it changes in terms of public confidence and understanding and the political climate. My difficulty with the motion relates more to the NTMA staff. The Minister said that staff seconded to the Department are critical in terms of expertise and skill, and I will not second guess that. I am not convinced by Deputy Fleming’s argument that the whole set-up should be taken back into the Department of Finance, although that is probably a discussion for another day. The Minister said that a memorandum of understanding is being finalised between the Department of Finance and the NTMA in respect of these individuals, but he did not say how many staff we are talking about. What are their contractual arrangements and are they subject to the public sector pay ceiling the Minister announced yesterday? Do they have perks and privileges not enjoyed by others in the Department? I would have to object strongly to any move that creates two tiers of staff within the Department; I think that is wrong, particularly in a scenario where we have a public service recruitment embargo. The Minister is familiar with Sinn Féin’s position on remuneration for senior public servants. Deputy Fleming has already alluded to the fact that many are earning salaries that simply cannot be justified in any set of circumstances, much less now when we are in the economic doldrums. The Minister should clarify those matters. If it is the case that these staff are on exorbitant salaries, and can thumb their noses at the Minister and society at large in respect of over-generous packages, and if their introduction to the Department will create a two-tier system, not alone do I object to it and wish to table an amendment to the Bill, but I will also object to the entire motion on that basis. I understand the necessity to clarify the legal status of any individual officer acting on behalf of the Minister. There must be absolute legal clarity concerning that matter. I also understand the motivation for introducing this part of the motion and in that respect I support it. However, I would like answers to the specific questions I posed on those matters. We will have a chance to discuss various amendments to the Bill today. As I said when we initially discussed the legislation here, it strikes me that the element of public sector reform is dwarfed by the emphasis on expenditure, cost control and — dare I say it — an agenda that is clearly about cutbacks. This is a lost opportunity. 474 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

Section 8 puts on a statutory footing matters concerning public sector reform, but the Bill’s calibration and emphasis are wrong. I hope the flaw in the legislation will not carry through and prove to be a flaw also in the outworking of the Department, as well as the Minister’s policy and political agenda. When the Minister replies, I hope he will answer those specific questions about the NTMA’s staff.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputy Catherine Murphy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I am delighted to be able to speak on this important Bill. I am concerned that a proper briefing was not given to our Technical Group. I do not believe any briefing was provided to us, unlike what was stated earlier when the question arose. I attempted to raise the matter on behalf of our group, but was told by the Ceann Comhairle that because I was not in a political party I could not take part in the debate this morning seeking more time, as Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have done. I know the Ceann Comhairle was right, but the system should be changed. We should be sitting late tonight to discuss this important legislation. Many such house-keeping matters need to be dealt with in line with the new Government’s pre-election commitments on transparency, as well as being fairer and more respectful to everybody who was elected to the House. I have wished the Minister well in his new portfolio and I voted for his appointment. I sought him out last night to compliment him on his announcement yesterday concerning pay scales for some senior people in semi-State bodies and elsewhere in the public service. I welcome that measure and hope it happens, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I had many animated debates on this subject with the late Brian Lenihan, God rest him. At the time of the pension levy, he rolled back on it with regard to senior civil servants. When I tabled a motion before my parliamentary party at the time, I was informed there were only 100 people involved, but it turned out to be 700 or 800. We did not get the honest facts and while I am not carrying out a witch hunt, we do need honesty and openness from those sections. I can see why this motion has to be dealt with. Earlier this morning, the Tánaiste said people were actively clamouring over when it would be done. It took time, but it should all have been done together. Surely we have the expertise to get it right, instead of rushing amendments through at this stage. The NTMA was put in place some time ago and was a wise decision at the time. As a previous speaker said, it was headed up by Dr. Michael Somers and, despite the pay scales involved, it did good work. No one minds paying good money when they get good work done. I made the same point in my contribution to the debate on JLCs yesterday. Many employers have arrangements to pay good money for good work. It works that way when there is a good relationship and mutual respect, and it is the same at the top level. Like other speakers, however, I want to know what the NTMA staff are doing now because we are locked out of the markets and will be for some time. It is a problem of public perception to have such a body of well-paid people, although in fairness they did good work. Were Dr. Somers and other senior people in the NTMA locked out of the discussions on that infamous night of the bank guarantee in 2008 and other infamous meetings that took place? We had to come in here and vote for a pig in a poke. We were obviously lied to, but these people were probably in a better position than anybody to understand what was happening in Anglo Irish Bank. I am wondering what happened there and whether Dr. Somers was consulted at all about that important item. 475 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Mattie McGrath.]

In Cork recently, Mr. Frank Daly, the chairman of NAMA, made an interesting statement at a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body. I have come across major issues concerning NAMA in my constituency, but we were told that we had no role or function in that regard. NAMA is not simply about economics and the property sector, it must also take into consideration the impact it is having on a range of business sectors within its remit. I simply do not believe that NAMA can work against business growth; it must be proactive and supportive of viable businesses and maybe ones that are not so viable and are under the radar. NAMA should look at the history of such businesses, as well as the ebb and flow of the economic situation, to see if they could come up again. NAMA cannot just act clinically, going in to close down a place, because it has major repercussions for industry. In my county, for example, there is a family who own several businesses. Just because one of them got into NAMA, because of property and — I might as well admit it — because of a bit of greed, nonetheless they have other viable businesses providing hundreds of jobs. They cannot stop the cheques for every one of those and halt the cash flow. I hope the Department of Finance will oversee the work of NAMA staff in terms of how NAMA properties are being packaged for sale. It is important to have trust, so they must do this. It is important to have the necessary staff in there and we will probably have to get staff from outside. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the staff in the Department of Finance, but how could they understand pig farming or the retail, hotel and many other industries that are involved? It is too wide and diverse. No one person or team of people could understand all that. The Department needs people seconded from them. I am not talking about consultants who are anathema to me. The Department needs people who understand these businesses. I am concerned that the market is only interested in top level properties in desirable and strategic locations. The danger is that we would be left with the dross and money might be made from selling off the jewels in the crown for short-term gain but that would create more problems down the road. The Department must use its position to oversee the process and ensure that such packaging of properties is fully explored. There are also a number of NAMA properties that would be valuable for social and public projects. I like the new Minister’s style so far. Many communities have suffered as a result of the so-called property boom. There are a great number of small properties on the web that would suit communities for a vast array of social good, and they must be examined. We cannot have a clinical approach to package off all these properties and make a profit from them. A review of the operations of NAMA, which was set up in a hurry, is overdue. The jury is out and will be out on the splitting of the Department of Finance in terms of how it will work. It is a big department and it has veins, so to speak, going into all other Departments. I know the Minister is eager and anxious to make change and while it is needed in the Department we must be very careful how we go about that. I was interested to hear the Minister cite what was said by W. T. Cosgrave in 1923. Everything has been tainted with the scandals that have happened in our country and people’s trust in all institutions has been damaged and undermined. We must ensure the Revenue Commissioners maintain their independence and are strengthened in their role. There must be no cosy deals because of NAMA in regard to revenue or anything else. Everything must be on the table. It will take a great deal of exploration, research and understanding — basically understanding is the big issue. I wish the Minister well but I am disappointed in view of the commitments made that we face a guillotine on this debate and have a short time to contribute to it. The Tánaiste might have said this morning that we have sought this, which we have, but it is like training for a 476 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee match. One might lose some. We are looking forward to this year again and we do not know about Kilkenny but one may have to make a few attempts to get it right.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy can have confidence in Tipperary.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I hope we will be successful but none the less we are not confident. We are building slowly and we will take a step back here and there. It is important to get it right. This is a very serious issue. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on it but I am disappointed that our group did not get any briefing. We are in here discussing this on the hind hoof and that is not fair. I thank the Leas Cheann-Comhairle for his time and forbearance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: They got it right last year in Tipperary.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: As I said during the debate on Second Stage, I do not have a problem with the Department being split. There is a good deal of merit in having a Minister with responsibility for public service reform at Cabinet level. I do not believe there is a person in this Dáil who does not believe that public service reform is required. That is understood and endorsed by people in the civil and public service. The people working in those services all know that they require reform but that should not be taken as a code for cuts. Such reform is about having a vision and rebuilding towards having a better public service in which people will be proud to work and from which citizens will consider they are getting a very good service. The fact this debate is occurring tells us there are flaws. We would not be having this debate if matters were straightforward. It was disingenuous of the Tánaiste, for whom I have a good deal of time and have known for many years, to say we were trying to restrict the debate on the Bill and delay its implementation. It is our job on this side of the House, on which the Minister was for long enough, to hold the Government to account and to tease matters out. When there is not a gap between Committee and Report Stages, there is a major flaw and if there is a major flaw in the process, there is often a major flaw in the outcome. I believe the Minister would make that point if he was on this side. The members of the Technical Group only learned this morning that there was a briefing yesterday for Opposition spokespersons. I fully understand that the Technical Group is not a nice neat package where there are spokespersons and where it is easy to do that. We did not decide to put ourselves in here, it was the citizens who decided that. The Technical Group forms almost 31% of the Opposition and I do not believe we should be excluded. I acknowledge that we have to do our part in making it easy for briefings to be made to one nominated person and we are very happy to do that, but the point I am making must be taken on board. The Minister or anyone who visits the Gallery would say this is a very different Dáil. The sheer size of the Government puts an extra obligation on it to make sure the process is right and to engage with people, even if it means we have to do things differently. Given that we are such a big group, things must be done differently. I had a discussion at the Whips meeting yesterday and I was told off because I was told they were sick of me and sick of the Technical Group. They will have to get used to being sick of us because we are not going to go away. We are here for the duration of this Dáil. In terms of the decision of the citizens to shape the Dáil in the way they did, I was a party in a constitutional case in terms of the equality of membership. Therefore, I am very familiar with case law on equality. Equality must extend to how we do business in reshaping things in a very changed environment. I wish to deal with some of the issues that are the subject of this debate. With regard to the Revenue Commissioners, I understand there requires to be scrutiny and supervision in regard 477 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

[Deputy Catherine Murphy.] to the number of staff. We all remember that there were two tax amnesties because there were deficiencies in the Revenue Commissioners over the years. I have serious concerns that while great pressure will be exerted to have supervision of the social welfare system, we will have inadequate supervision of the Revenue Commissioners, having regard to the embargo and the number of people there to make sure that people pay their taxes. If people do not pay their taxes, we will end up in the same situation that occurred in the past. One need only look around to know that the black economy is starting to function. It is obvious to anyone who cares to look. People with small businesses have pointed out to me that they believe that it is from the black economy that they are suffering unfair competition. In the Revenue Commis- sioners’ supervisory role, particular attention must be paid to ensure there are sufficient people to do that job because it is extremely important. I am no fan of NAMA. The setting up of it was one of the greatest mistakes that was ever made. I agree with Deputy Sean Fleming that it should be returned to the Department. We have for too many years seen an outsourcing of responsibility. That was a particular pattern of politics that did not serve this country well. All the quangos are a case in point 12 o’clock and I do not need to dwell on that. A person told me that a piece of land was acquired by NAMA and the person who owned it returned to buy an adjacent field and when the person selling the field said he had heard that the person’s assets had been acquired by NAMA and was surprised he had the money to purchase the field, he replied he had bought it back for a tiny fraction of what he originally paid for it. I am checking to see whether this allegation is true, but it is not the first one. The lack of transparency one remove from such allegations is a serious issue that will come back to bite us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy must conclude her remarks. She has gone over time.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I agree with Deputy Sean Fleming that this should be returned to the Department of Finance. Rushed legislation is bad legislation. The process is wrong. It is essential that we voice our concern about this.

Minister without Portfolio (Deputy Brendan Howlin): I genuinely appreciate the difficulties of the Deputies opposite. In the course of normal legislation once the Department is established, we will take on board their views and concerns to ensure we have the fullest debate. Deputy Sean Fleming is wrong about the Department’s genesis. The thought process entered both parties’ programmes separately. We were anxious to have fundamental political, constitutional and public service reform. As Labour Party spokesman on reform, I set up an ad hoc group that involved some of the most eminent public servants, past and present, in this country and abroad. Among their recommendations was that we would never have real reform unless it was led by someone of Cabinet rank who was in control of the money through the Estimates. This was our model and, amazingly, Fine Gael reached the same conclusion. Therefore, it was easy to match our policies and divide into two Departments. It will work well. In the current financial situation, it is impossible for the Minister for Finance, who must focus on the macro-economic situation and deal with our external partners and the State’s funding issues, those being taxation and so on, to drive a reform agenda at the same time. Reform would always be a secondary issue. For this reason, I have been given my task and the leverages to achieve it through control of expenditure. That is the background. The amendments under debate are to this Bill because it is the first available legislation that is not a money Bill. Had they been included in the Finance (No. 3) Bill, they would have 478 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee robbed it of its status as a money Bill. Therefore, they needed to be made to this legislation. The Deputies opposite understand the situation. If it was Deputy Sean Fleming’s suggestion that there be an explanatory memorandum in respect of amendments, it was a good one. An explanatory memorandum would save a great deal of time, as it would lay out the reasoning I have on paper before me for each amendment and people could go through it. One could make too much of this Bill. It is literally an enabling Bill for the establishment of the Department of public expenditure and reform by dividing up the Department of Finance. While almost 200 statutes are to be amended, all of the amendments are technical. Where the function was with the Minister for Finance, it will now be with the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform. The amendments are not creating new principles of law. They are simply creating a disaggregation of one Department into two. It took so long because the Minister for Finance is referenced in virtually every statute since the foundation of the State, as I instanced. For this reason, I must pay tribute to my staff and to the staff of the Department of Finance, who were so involved in creating this Bill. Their work meant fine-combing an enormous volume of legislation. Without the advent of computers, we would be waiting a further year for it to be done. The amendments are primarily technical. We will be able to go through them quickly once they have been moved. There are so many fresh amendments following the Bill because we are taking a belt and braces approach. Since we are dealing with statutes dating back to the foundation of the State, the drafting style has changed over the generations. Our original intention was for a short Bill, one that simply stated, “That category of function shall be transferred”. However, I am afraid the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General demand certainty in these matters. Individual amendments are required to address the phraseology used in original statutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister has just one minute remaining.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I will leave some of my other comments for the debate on the amendments. I should address Deputy McDonald’s comments on the National Treasury Man- agement Agency, NTMA. I thank Deputy Mattie McGrath for his good wishes and I will address the issues he raised as we deal with other amendments. The number of staff to be transferred is ten. They are recruited on a different basis to the public service and have a different pay rate. I am not entirely happy but, to be blunt, that is the situation. I would like transparency. The only reason I know some of their pay rates is because party colleagues asked about them on the Committee of Public Accounts. That is not a good way to have it. The pay rates of everyone on the public purse should be known. As to yesterday’s announcements concerning the exclusion of the NTMA, I intend to write to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to determine whether we can at least have transparency. We all have a responsibility regarding burden sharing where pay is concerned. Perhaps I can address this issue specifically when we debate the amendments. I might also be able to discuss the specific functionality of the NTMA. By and large, the two issues before the House will be agreed. The first will give legal certainty to the NTMA staff who will form part of the Department’s banking division. The Nyberg report recommended a substantial strengthening of the Department of Finance’s banking division. The second will give Revenue the independence recommended by Mr. Justice Moriarty. As Deputy Sean Fleming rightly stated, it may not change practice, but it is important to put the matter in law to ensure that, if anyone is minded to change practice at any time in the future, there will be a legal barrier to doing so. 479 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Instruction to Committee

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 41.

Tá

Bannon, James. Humphreys, Kevin. Barry, Tom. Keating, Derek. Breen, Pat. Keaveney, Colm. Broughan, Thomas P. Kenny, Seán. Bruton, Richard. Kyne, Seán. Buttimer, Jerry. Lawlor, Anthony. Byrne, Catherine. Lynch, Ciarán. Cannon, Ciarán. Lyons, John. Carey, Joe. McCarthy, Michael. Coffey, Paudie. McFadden, Nicky. Conaghan, Michael. McHugh, Joe. Connaughton, Paul J. McLoughlin, Tony. Conway, Ciara. McNamara, Michael. Coonan, Noel. Maloney, Eamonn. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Mathews, Peter. Costello, Joe. Mitchell, Olivia. Mulherin, Michelle. Coveney, Simon. Murphy, Eoghan. Creed, Michael. Nash, Gerald. Daly, Jim. Naughten, Denis. Deasy, John. Neville, Dan. Deering, Pat. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Doherty, Regina. O’Donnell, Kieran. Donohoe, Paschal. O’Mahony, John. Dowds, Robert. Perry, John. Doyle, Andrew. Phelan, Ann. Durkan, Bernard J. Phelan, John Paul. Farrell, Alan. Rabbitte, Pat. Feighan, Frank. Ring, Michael. Ferris, Anne. Ryan, Brendan. Fitzgerald, Frances. Shatter, Alan. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Shortall, Róisín. Flanagan, Terence. Spring, Arthur. Gilmore, Eamon. Stagg, Emmet. Griffin, Brendan. Timmins, Billy. Hannigan, Dominic. Tuffy, Joanna. Harrington, Noel. Twomey, Liam. Harris, Simon. Varadkar, Leo. Hayes, Brian. Wall, Jack. Hayes, Tom. Walsh, Brian. Hogan, Phil. White, Alex. Howlin, Brendan.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Browne, John. McConalogue, Charlie. Calleary, Dara. McDonald, Mary Lou. Colreavy, Michael. McGrath, Finian. Cowen, Barry. McGrath, Mattie. Daly, Clare. McGrath, Michael. Doherty, Pearse. McGuinness, John. Donnelly, Stephen. McLellan, Sandra. Dooley, Timmy. Martin, Micheál. Ferris, Martin. Moynihan, Michael. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. Murphy, Catherine. Fleming, Sean. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Fleming, Tom. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Healy, Seamus. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Higgins, Joe. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Kirk, Seamus. O’Brien, Jonathan. Kitt, Michael P. O’Sullivan, Maureen. 480 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Níl—continued

Pringle, Thomas. Tóibín, Peadar. Ross, Shane. Troy, Robert. Smith, Brendan. Wallace, Mick. Stanley, Brian.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Question declared carried.

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages

NEW SECTION Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, before section 1, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011.

(2) Sections 6, 7, 8, and 14(3), and Parts 3 and 4 shall come into operation on the appointed day.

(3) The Ministers and Secretaries Acts 1924 to 2007 and this Act may be cited together as the Ministers and Secretaries Acts 1924 to 2011 and shall be construed together as one Act.”.

This is a technical amendment that inserts a reference to the appointed day on which particular sections and Parts of the Bill shall come into operation. Other sections will come into operation immediately on enactment. In essence, while I do not want to presume its acceptance in the other House and the President’s consent, it is expected all sections and parts of the Bill will come into operation on 5 July when the commencement order is signed by the Taoiseach.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I am not happy with the way the Bill is being handled.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: We have had that debate.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I oppose further debate on it. Consequently, I am opposing the amendment.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 40.

Tá

Bannon, James. Coffey, Paudie. Barry, Tom. Conaghan, Michael. Breen, Pat. Connaughton, Paul J. Broughan, Thomas P. Conway, Ciara. Bruton, Richard. Coonan, Noel. Butler, Ray. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Buttimer, Jerry. Costello, Joe. Byrne, Catherine. Coveney, Simon. Cannon, Ciarán. Daly, Jim. Carey, Joe. Deasy, John. 481 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Tá—continued

Deering, Pat. McGinley, Dinny. Doherty, Regina. McLoughlin, Tony. Donohoe, Paschal. McNamara, Michael. Dowds, Robert. Maloney, Eamonn. Doyle, Andrew. Mathews, Peter. Durkan, Bernard J. Mitchell, Olivia. Farrell, Alan. Mulherin, Michelle. Feighan, Frank. Murphy, Eoghan. Ferris, Anne. Nash, Gerald. Fitzgerald, Frances. Naughten, Denis. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Neville, Dan. Flanagan, Terence. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Gilmore, Eamon. O’Donnell, Kieran. Griffin, Brendan. O’Dowd, Fergus. Hannigan, Dominic. O’Mahony, John. Harrington, Noel. Phelan, Ann. Harris, Simon. Phelan, John Paul. Hayes, Brian. Rabbitte, Pat. Hayes, Tom. Ring, Michael. Hogan, Phil. Ryan, Brendan. Howlin, Brendan. Shatter, Alan. Humphreys, Kevin. Shortall, Róisín. Keating, Derek. Spring, Arthur. Keaveney, Colm. Stagg, Emmet. Kenny, Seán. Timmins, Billy. Kyne, Seán. Tuffy, Joanna. Lawlor, Anthony. Twomey, Liam. Lynch, Ciarán. Varadkar, Leo. Lynch, Kathleen. Wall, Jack. Lyons, John. Walsh, Brian. McCarthy, Michael. White, Alex. McFadden, Nicky.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. McGrath, Finian. Browne, John. McGrath, Mattie. Calleary, Dara. McGrath, Michael. Collins, Joan. McGuinness, John. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Cowen, Barry. Martin, Micheál. Daly, Clare. Moynihan, Michael. Murphy, Catherine. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Dooley, Timmy. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Ferris, Martin. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’. O’Brien, Jonathan. Fleming, Sean. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Fleming, Tom. Pringle, Thomas. Healy, Seamus. Ross, Shane. Higgins, Joe. Smith, Brendan. Kelleher, Billy. Stanley, Brian. Kirk, Seamus. Tóibín, Peadar. Kitt, Michael P. Troy, Robert. McConalogue, Charlie. Wallace, Mick. McDonald, Mary Lou.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Amendment declared carried.

Section 1 deleted.

482 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

SECTION 2

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): For the information of Deputies, amendment No. 2 is on the substitute list of amendments which was circulated on 22 June. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

““Act of 1945” means the National Stud Act 1945;”.

These are technical amendments to the definition in section 2 and include the definition of the Act referred to in the Bill and list the Acts which are cross-referenced. The term “appointed day” is in amendment No. 5, and the term “statutory instrument” is in amendment No. 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

““Act of 1976” means the Gas Act 1976;

“Act of 1983” means the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983;

“Act of 1988” means the Forestry Act 1988;

“Act of 1993” means the Irish Aviation Authority Act 1993;

“Act of 1996” means the Harbours Act 1996;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 4:

““Act of 1998” means the Turf Development Act 1998;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, after line 32, to insert the following:

““appointed day” shall be construed in accordance with section 4;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell): Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, to delete lines 1 and 2.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are being considered together, with amendment No. 20 in the name of Deputy Fleming. These amendments relate in the main to the definition 483 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] in the Bill of “public service body”. As the Minister for Finance is transferring to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform a number of functions relating to remuneration, superannuation, and so on, in commercial semi-State bodies, the definition of public service body in section 7 which transfers these public service type functions will now include commercial State bodies. Amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 15 amend the definition of public service body in this way. Amendments No. 8, 10 and 14 are technical amendments. Amendment No. 17 provides that functions of the Minister for Finance relating to the superannuation, remuneration, and so on of the Judiciary, Members of the Oireachtas, members of local authorities, Ministers and Ministers of State and the President transfer from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform as these would not be included in the existing section 7(1)(a)(i), which refers only to staff of public bodies. Amendment No. 19 tidies up the wording of section 8(f) in the published Bill and seeks to set out more clearly the Minister’s function in procurement policies and procedural frameworks. This amendment also clarifies that commercial semi-State bodies are not included in the definition of public service body for the purposes of section 8, namely, the reform remit of the new Department and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Deputy Fleming’s amendment No. 20, which is taken with this grouping, is in two parts. The first, subsection (g), relates to combating high levels of salary in the public service. The Deputy already referred to the announcement I made yesterday on foot of a Government decision of earlier this week on the introduction of pay ceilings for the highest paid persons across the public service, and for chief executive officers in commercial State companies. This Government supports a strong policy on pay restraint within the public service, as we determined on the day of our election when we reduced our own pay rates and fixed the highest pay rate for any public servant at that stage to be €200,000. We have worked since then on establishing that figure as a pay ceiling for all public servants, which will be in line with the recommendation published yesterday. The ceiling norm for all new incumbent positions will cascade down through the public service in relative fashion. A higher remuneration of €250,000 is the ceiling in respect of chief executive officers of commercial semi-State bodies. We did much thinking in this regard because there are many in the semi-State sector earning higher than the €250,000 threshold that we determined. Deputies asked why we did not do this, legislatively, for everybody, including incumbents. I explored that and certainly would not have been averse to it but was informed that a financial emergency measures in the public interest, or FEMPI, process focus on such a narrow group of people for such a small take of money would not be robust and would be subject to constitutional overturn. Obviously, I was anxious that this would not happen. However, I believe we will get voluntary reduction. I do not have the pay scales in front of me but it transpires there will be only one chief executive officer earning above the €250,000 threshold, namely, the CEO of the ESB, with the rest earning less than that. A total of only five will earn above the general norm of €200,000 which applies to the rest of the public service. It is a fair measure. I wished to keep the relativities as well and that is why we used the Hay report, which set out the relative differences, and simply reduced everybody’s salary in proportionate terms. It was raised with me that because we used the Hay recommendations we may have gone too far in respect of the lowest-earning chief executive officers, which positions relate, in the main, to port companies. I am willing to look again at the lowest rates but that is a matter for debate when such positions come up to be filled. 484 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

In the interim I have asked for voluntary reductions for incumbents who are above the threshold of €250,000, to bring them down by 15%, or, at least, to the €250,000 level. Some indicated they have already taken a pay cut. I am very heartened, and wish to put it on public record, that I got an immediate response from the heads of public Departments, namely, the secretaries general, who, before the end of business yesterday, all offered to accept the voluntary new ceiling of €200,000 and relinquish their former rate. That is an act of public service because they have already been subject to a number of pay cuts. For all those reasons, therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to consider the first part of Deputy Fleming’s amendment. The second part proposes the retaining of a published record of all purchase orders in respect of the procurement of goods and services by, and on behalf of, Departments and other public service bodies. As far as the new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is concerned, all information on public expenditure belongs to and should be available to the public. Our aim is to put Ireland at the leading edge of what is available in terms of openness, transparency and public details. I do not know whether the Deputies opposite have had the opportunity to notice but on Tuesday this week I launched two units within my departmental website. One invites the public to participate in making suggestions for reform so that we can do things better and more efficiently and I am absolutely overwhelmed by the phenomenal response. Not all the ideas are great, obviously, but some are and I have guaranteed to publish the best of them on the website and, much more important, to implement them. In addition, we are providing a useful new data source for Deputies, the general public, writers, and so on. The data bank available on the Department’s website, www.per.gov.ie, provides comprehensive information on every aspect of Government expenditure, currently and going back to 1994. The provision of such information is the beginning, rather than the end, of the process of opening the State’s data. The Department plans to make further information available in the near future. Information on every subhead of expenditure will be publicly available in the data bank within weeks of being agreed. I am not a great techie, but this system has been demonstrated to me in some detail. It allows comparison of expenditure under any subhead one likes. One can assess growth or diminution in public sector numbers, for example, over the past ten years and thereby make real-time comparisons. This extremely important tool will give the public an unprecedented volume of current and historical data about how public money is spent, and in what area. It will reveal the public expenditure trends. It is my intention that over time, the Department will put all appropriate information into the hands of the public through the data bank. In addition to historical and annual information, it is intended that monthly Exchequer data will be made available for public scrutiny. I refer to the stuff that comes to the Government on a monthly basis, the general Government expenditure data and the purchase orders made by every Department and State agency. It is hoped that the public will be able to get information on what has been bought and how much it has cost within a month of that data becoming available. This aspect of the system will be up and running when the technical work has been completed. I believe this is the approach Deputy Fleming intended that the Department would take. I assure the Deputy that I want to ensure the new Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is open and transparent. A public understanding of what we spend money on is necessary if expenditure is to be properly scrutinised. My experience is that the clearer and more open the spotlight on public expenditure is, the more prudent the expenditure decisions tend to be.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments under discussion and responding to amendment No. 30 in my name. The salaries and pensions of senior employees 485 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] in the public service and excluded bodies is a topical issue at present. The first line of the statement I issued yesterday welcomed the Minister’s announcement. I am pleased that action is being taken. This matter was referred to when Mr. Brian Lenihan introduced last December’s budget. I am pleased that the proposals made at that time are now being implemented. We are going much further down the road at this stage. As the amendments before the House relate strictly to high pay levels, the Minister has an opportunity to clarify the decision he has made with regard to the ESB.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Sure.

Deputy Sean Fleming: When my wife asked me why the chief executive of the ESB should get paid more than his counterpart in An Post, I said it is more complicated to generate electricity than to deliver envelopes. She was very angry with my explanation of the Minister’s approach. Perhaps the Minister can provide a better justification for it. My wife, as a member of the public, did not buy it. She argued that the chief executive of the ESB sits at a big desk in an office with staff all around him. She asked what the difference is between what he does and what others do. She said he does not personally put oil or gas into the burners at power stations. Perhaps the Minister can explain his approach. I also want to raise a couple of other specific cases. I do not accept for a minute that the chief executive of AIB, which is a nationalised bank, should be exempt from the income limit. can the Minister explain why he is exempt? I assume he will refer to the existence of an independent board of directors. Deputy McDonald discussed the case of the NTMA at length when we debated the earlier motion. I am keen to tease out the approach being taken with regard to hospital consultants. I understand that the contracts of many consultants were nego- tiated at the height of the Celtic tiger. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts at the time, I said we would regret the deal that was struck. Even though I was a back bench Deputy in the Government that agreed the deal, I said it was a bad day’s work. It was nego- tiated at the height of the Celtic tiger. The then Minister thought it was a great achievement to give lucrative contracts to consultants. She may have secured some improvements in the contracts, but the cost will nor stand up to long-term scrutiny. My instinct is that the basic salary of consultants who have opted for public-only contracts — others have private work as well and there are extra posts — is approximately €200,000. Will those who have extra posts be brought back under the €200,000 limit? They will not be covered by the commercial semi-State limit. I believe there are many of them. I accept that yesterday’s announcement was geared towards new people who will come into the job in the future. It will not apply to anyone who is there already. I do not know how for long the contracts of these consultants extends. Some consultants have contracts for life. I do not think there is a closing date on them. Perhaps they extend to the date of retirement. It could be decades before some of them are replaced. Why should we pay so much to consultants? The Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, was vociferous in his defence of hospital consultants on “The Frontline” the other night. He spoke about the use of public hospital beds relative to the ratio that is allowed under these contracts. Is the Govern- ment’s relationship with consultants and the medical profession too cosy? Perhaps the Minister can put my mind at ease in that regard. I am worried about salary scales. I do not want to be negative. If somebody does a great job, that is the most important thing. If one is given a senior job and told the Government’s salary cap of €250,000 applies to it, human nature means the first thing one will do — or someone acting on one’s behalf will do — is examine how one’s remuneration package can be improved. One might request a top-of-the-range company car that is changed every two years. One might 486 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage ask about the expense, entertainment and travel allowances to which one is entitled. One might look for a performance bonus. I object utterly in principle to that approach. People on salaries of €200,000 or €250,000 per annum are being paid to do their jobs to the best of their ability. If they feel they have done a very good job, they might argue that they should be entitled to a bonus. Like most people, I find that abhorrent. There should be no scope for bonuses in these remuneration packages. I would be far more interested in a clause that prevents people from getting their full salaries if they do not perform. It is like upward-only rent reviews. The salary is the basic starting point and everything goes up after that. Pension contributions can be substantial, depending on a person’s age. People can have their private health insurance or VHI paid for them. My family pays €4,000 or €5,000 for health insurance. Such additional aspects of remuneration packages can be worth a great deal of money after tax, especially if one has a family. What will the Minister do about these remuneration packages, as opposed to basic wages? I compliment him on the start he has made. I do not expect him to finish it all on his first step. Perhaps he will come back and look at all of these things down the road. I suggest he should draw up guidelines on issues like those I have mentioned. I was impressed to hear the Minister say that the Secretaries General agreed to the voluntary deduction yesterday. Perhaps he will can give us some anecdotal information on that. Did all the Secretaries General meet to discuss this matter? Meetings of what some people call “the real permanent Government” are rare events. Ministers should be worried if the Secretaries General are meeting too often. They have to make plans when they are dealing with a new Government. It is good if they had a meeting. That issue will be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts in due course. Perhaps the Minister can provide some background information. When he speaks about Secretaries General, is he including all the accounting officers in the various Departments? I raise another issue in the context of this amendment. I concur with the Minister’s decision to ask the public to suggest reforms, improvements and efficiencies in the public service. I live near Portlaoise, which is a public sector town. In addition to officials working in organisations like the HSE and the Teaching Council, there are approximately 600 staff in the 1o’clock Department of Agriculture, Marine and Food and almost 1,000 current or retired prison officers in the Portlaoise area. Although public servants are not in love with us, they are well able to tell us where there is room for cutbacks or greater efficiencies. They never say there is inefficiency at their levels. It is always at the higher levels of these organisations. In truth, I am not being fair to them. Many of them did know that in many cases they were being asked to do things that did not need to be done at all. The Minister will find, if he taps into that resource, there is a wealth of information that can come up on efficiencies. People like taking a bit of pride in their job, they like to feel they are doing something productive, and they could help on that. I would encourage that and look forward to seeing that on the website. On the second half of my amendment, the published record of all purchase orders is also a long-term project. It is not to do with the nitty-gritty of purchase orders but it would show up value for money, not only in Deputy Howlin’s Department but across the Departments. The then Department of Transport looked at this. For example, although I do not have the exact figures, it got information from all the local authorities which showed there is a phenomenal difference between the cost of reconstructing or tarring a kilometre of road in Cork and in Galway, Kildare or Meath. I understand most local authorities try, where possible, to wear a county jersey and give the job to a contractor from their own area if at all possible. With all 487 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] due regard, I would say it would be difficult for contractors from outside Cork to get much work from Cork County Council. That is merely my instinct on the way they work down there.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): That must change.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I am delighted the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Deputy Brian Hayes, is present. That is why I agree. When there are so many State agencies such as the HSE, State bodies, VECs and local authorities in operation, I guarantee the Mini- ster there are different suppliers getting different prices for the same product because some of them merely drive a harder bargain. We all know there are tendering procedures, but the specification can be varied to suit a local need. I am not always rushing for the cheapest. I am looking for the best value. Sometimes the cheaper product is a dirt product and one does not always want the cheapest. That is why I would welcome that record being developed in due course. There will probably be data protection issues on the commercial sensitivity of prices on purchase orders, and the Minister might address this matter in due course. These issues will affect people bidding. Commercial sensitivity is often used as a way of spiking the release of some of this information. The Minister must take freedom of information, commercial sensitivity and data protection into consideration when drafting this. Data protection can be a good issue, but sometimes it can restrict the free flow of information between Departments which is in the interests of the public in terms of getting value for money. Perhaps the Minister would respond to these few additional points about the overall remuneration packages. Those are the specific points I wanted to raise at this stage.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I look forward to those responses as well. The Minister will be happy to hear that not alone did I see his website looking for ideas for cost savings, I actually advertised it on my social media——

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Excellent.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: ——and encouraged people to take part in it.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: There was so much coming in at one stage yesterday that it momen- tarily crashed. Four hundred people tried to access it.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: There you go.

Deputy Brian Hayes: That is like the Olympics site.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: If one is looking for real reform, not merely in systems but in culture, inevitably there is no better place to go than the shop floor because they are the experts in how services are delivered, efficiently or inefficiently. I want to raise something different with the Minister which relates to commercial semi- State companies. I understand the Minister’s role in superannuation, remuneration, terms and conditions and so on. I want him to clarify his role, or lack thereof, in the commercial semi- State companies as regards section 8, reform and change. What I am driving at is the role of the Minister in the transfer or disposal of assets in part or in whole of any of the semi-State companies. The Minister will be aware that I have written to him about the Cahill report in respect of the ESB. He has not written back. Perhaps he might. I made clear to the Minister and others of his colleagues that he should publish that report in advance of any decision on 488 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage unbundling. For the purposes of this discussion, perhaps the Minister would set out for me where he is located within that decision-making process.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I thank the Deputies opposite. Deputy Fleming made a number of points. To answer his first, which is probably most important, on how we determine that the highest paid should be the chief executive officer of the ESB, the Deputy will be aware that there was a process done when his party was in Government called the Hay process. It looked at setting pay levels for the commercial semi-State sector, but also at determining the relativities between the chief executive officers because, as my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, stated, I think to the annoyance of the greyhound community, the chief executive officer of Bord na gCon should not be paid the same as the chief executive officer of the ESB. There are relativities. In the list published yesterday, one can see that these run from the ESB at the top to the chief executive officers of some of the smaller port companies at the bottom, and there are significant differentials in pay. That is for a good reason, because the complexity, size and scale of responsibility is different. I wanted to shy away from a crude instrument of putting a general cap that would flatten that differential and we applied the Hay reductions on a percentage basis to everyone. That is where we came up with the cascading list. The percentage take we took was the aggregate cuts that had been inflicted generally under the financial measures in the public interest scheme plus 10%. That brought everyone except for the chief executive officer of the ESB below the €250,000 threshold. It is a very significant reduction, from the incumbent’s salary to what will be paid to the next chief executive officer appointed. Unless one wanted to make an additional cut to the chief executive officer of the ESB, he would not have come below the threshold. Having discussed it with colleagues at Cabinet, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, in particular, it was felt that such was an appropriate level of pay. As Deputy Fleming will be aware, I have asked the incumbents who currently breach the €250,000 threshold to take a voluntary reduction of 15% or to reach the €250,000 threshold, whichever has the least impact on their wages. Deputy Fleming makes a good case about the chief executive officer of AIB. I am sure that if I was sitting on the opposite side of the House, it would be a case I myself would be happy to make. It is not a commercial semi-State company. Currently, the State has a majority shareholding in AIB and there is a case to be made that some level of public service norms should be applicable. These are not legally applicable now. It is a source of aggravation to the public to see with the banks generally the pay rates of those who were in charge of them and who made those decisions that brought such economic devastation to the country, and the pensions with which they have walked away. As Deputy Fleming knows full well, however, it is difficult to do any of this retrospectively under our constitutional provisions. The NTMA was raised by both Deputies. The NTMA’s staff are contracted on individual contracts, which means the NTMA determines the skills it wants, identifies the holders of those skills, wherever those people might be, at home or abroad, and negotiates contracts with them. As I indicated, I am not happy with the degree of secrecy that surrounds that. I do not know the pay rates in the NTMA. I know the chief executive’s pay, because he disclosed it to the Committee of Public Accounts, and the number who breach the €200,000 threshold, because that was indicated to that committee as well. The Minister in charge of public expenditure does not know these sums as of right, which is not good. I certainly will be taking that matter up with the Minister, Deputy Noonan, who has directly responsibility. Deputy McDonald is correct when she states that the issue is amplified when one has the placement of NTMA officials in the Department of Finance, as is envisaged. The reason for this, which I had not much chance to explain in the previous debate, is to comply with the 489 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] determination of Government to have a robust banking division which carries a proper scrutiny. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has overseen fundamental restructuring of the banking division. Deputies will be aware of the Nyberg report, which contains a detailed analysis and pointed out many weaknesses. These are weaknesses which, by and large, have been dealt with already but there are some things we need to do further. This process will ensure that areas can be transferred under a memorandum of understanding from the NTMA into the Department of Finance. The issue raised in the previous debate was to ensure there would be legal certainty in respect of their status. One thing I discovered when I was writing the reform document for the Labour Party last year was the Carltona principle. Apparently this comes from a 1940s case in the United Kingdom in which the authority of a civil servants to act on a legal or a constitutional basis on behalf of the Minister was challenged. The principle was established that civil servants acting bona fides had the legal authority of the Minister. The issue was to transfer that legal authority to these new personnel with certainty so that when they sign affidavits or appear before the courts they could have legal certainty in their legal personae. This is what that is about. The issue of hospital consultants was raised. From 1 January, the 10% pay reduction for all new entrants into the public service has been applied to everyone. All newly appointed consultants are already below the €200,000 threshold. They were not specifically mentioned in the announcement I made yesterday because the Minister for Health is already in negotiations on work practices. I am keen for that work to be concluded before we specifically consider the issue of hospital consultants. The Deputy will be aware that some people have particular additional responsibilities, for example, the Masters of the maternity hospitals or the clinical directors in hospitals. Under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest legislation, the allowance element or portion of salary for the post or responsibility was treated differently than basic pay. That principle is replicated here. The issues of performance related pay and bonuses were raised as well as the general principle. At this stage, all line Ministers have written to the semi-State bodies under their aegis to outline that the Government is against bonuses and that no bonuses should be paid to anyone in the current economic climate. Performance related pay is contractually part of some chief executive officers’ basic pay packages and cannot be dislodged arbitrarily. They have legal comfort in the contractual arrangements. One of the decisions the Government made on Tues- day is to request me to examine fundamentally performance related pay as an issue. I intend to do this. In the past, there have been instances where performance related pay was simply taken as part of basic salary and it was rubber-stamped by a board. That must stop. I have not been convinced yet but there are arguments which hold that there should be an incentive to achieve set goals and that there should be a financial reward for certain chief executives. There must be some mechanism to set goals and to validate their achievements. It should not be automatic. This is something to which we can return. Issues relating to the reform agenda and procurement were raised. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, has embarked on a robust review of procurement in the public sector. He has already been to London to meet his British counterpart who has achieved significant savings in their procurement agenda. None of these things are simple because, as in the case of roads projects, we do not seek a situation where everything one buys is cheaper but it is all manufac- tured outside the State. There must be some focus that Irish money being spent is sustaining Irish jobs, even if it is marginally more expensive than procuring goods or services with foreign product. Within procurement law we are captured by our treaty obligations as well. These are matters the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, is very seized of. When the committee is up and 490 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage running it would be useful to hold a real, open debate on procurement policy, how we do things and so on. Deputy MacDonald referred to my role in terms of the commercial semi-State bodies. The commercial semi-State bodies are independent of Government in their normal business transactions. This is the statue basis of virtually all of the organisations. My role is to ensure that general Government policy on remuneration is applied. Borrowing for semi-State bodies will involve the joint action of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and me. The amendment provides for a transfer to the Minister, that is to say, me, of shares or stocks issued to the Minister for Finance by a public body and registered in the name or held in trust on behalf of a person. The list to which the subsection of the legislation refers is in the amendment. I am unsure what specific information the Deputy sought because I have not seen her letter. I presume it is in transit to me and I will check out the matter as soon as I get back. Deputy McDonald raised the specific issue of the Cahill report. There are two issues of note with regard to my role. Borrowing will be an action performed by the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and me. I refer to the implementation of the McCarthy report in general terms. I am responsible to Government to receive from each line Department its reaction to the McCarthy report and to co-ordinate a set of proposals which I will then send to Government. To date, we have received from each line Minister his or her initial consideration of the McCarthy report and my officials are working on this. I hope to have proposals to Government before the summer recess. This is the intention. If there is any matter I have missed I would be pleased to refer to it again.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I have no wish to prolong things unduly. I understand that borrowing is a joint function and I understand the Minister’s role in terms of remuneration, pensions and pay. My question relates to the transfer or disposal of the asset in part or whole and where the share resides. I seek clarification from the Minister on this matter. My understanding is that this is also a shared role between the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister for Finance. This is a critical issue. We are not here to debate the McCarthy report in substance.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: We will find the relevant section for the Deputy.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: It is critical that we are all aware of the rules of engagement on this issue from the get-go.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I will answer that specific question. As Deputy McDonald correctly indicated, the shareholding held by the Minister for Finance will transfer to me immediately on the enactment of the legislation. The disposal of it will be a matter for me in consultation with the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I wish to raise several points. The Minister stated that Allied Irish Banks did not come under the definition of a commercial State organisation. My first reaction was whether he was implying that it is a non-commercial organisation given the amount of money we continue to put into it. Perhaps we should set up a new category of body.

Deputy Brian Hayes: We could call it accident and emergency.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Something like that. Perhaps I missed the reference in the press release yesterday to the case of consultants but I do not believe it was referred to. It was only when we picked up on it that it was suggested the Minister, Deputy Reilly, would deal with it separately. We look forward to it coming to fruition. Will the Minister, Deputy Howlin, have 491 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] a role in this matter or will it be one strictly for the line Minister? In other words, after it goes to the Cabinet, which Minister will be responsible for its sign-off? The Minister mentioned the role of the directors of various State companies. There is a problem in this regard in that the role of departmental staff in some Government bodies is utterly confusing. They are sent there to be the Minister’s eyes and ears, in a sense, but on entering the boardroom, they are told they are there to represent the corporate interests of the organisation. I refer to FÁS and such bodies, and I am sure the same applies to ministerial nominees on the boards of Forfás, IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the National Roads Auth- ority and so on. When staff move from the Department into these organisations, the shutters are pulled down and they no longer feel able to talk to the Minister because they now have a corporate responsibility under company law to the organisation in question. They are not public interest directors as such. Public interest directors have been appointed to the banks, but even there, they are limited in what they can do. When challenged on their role, they have argued that as board members of a particular bank, they must operate in the interests of that bank. Their background means they have an understanding of the public interest which they carry with them into their new organisation, but there is no mechanism to deal formally with these issues. I accept that there is no simple solution to this problem, but I am interested in the Minister’s comments. We will deal with procurement procedures in more detail presently. This issue was examined last year by the Department of Finance because there was concern, particularly in the construction industry, that large numbers of public projects, including the printing of some of the leaving certificate examination papers, for example, were being awarded to external contractors. An examination of last year’s figures shows that Ireland is utterly out of synch with the rest of Europe in this regard. For instance, 99% of all capital projects in France are assigned to French companies, and the same applies in Germany. In these countries project specifications are designed to suit what can be provided from within the state. Such an approach is within EU law, and it is open to contractors from any other member state to bid, but it is nicely constructed to suit the French or German way of doing business. We have not copped on to ourselves on this issue. We must be careful to avoid imposing additional costs on the taxpayer, but we are out of synch with other countries which know how to live within EU procurement rules while ensuring as much public business as possible is retained within the state. We are told that the provisions in this legislation cannot be applied to incumbents because of contractual obligations. Has the Government considered taking a test case in respect of one of these organisations? In the case of judges’ pay, for example, I would have been inclined, at the time reductions were applied to the remuneration of other workers in the public service, to have instructed whoever was responsible to cut judicial pay and see what happened. Likewise, I propose that the same be done in respect of incumbents’ pay and let anybody who wishes to do so take the matter to court. Even if the Government were to lose the case in five years time, the Minister would have shown the public he meant business and sent a signal across the public service that these changes could not be avoided. If the Government were to do this, no doubt the Attorney General and every barrister in the country would be up in arms. However, it is important to bear in mind that the Attorney General’s role is not to dictate to the Govern- ment but to offer legal advice. Moreover, that advice is only one key element in the govern- mental decision-making process; it is not the only consideration. I would be pleased to see the Government doing what it knows is right in this case and facing the consequences in court. We might all be surprised by the outcome. A judge might well agree that there is a reasonable case to be made for an inability to pay, given that we are borrowing €12 billion to €15 billion per annum to meet social welfare payments, provide special needs assistants in schools and so on. 492 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

The Minister — whether that is Deputy Howlin or another Minister — should go down to the High Court and plead inability to pay the wages of these incumbents. A judge might agree they are not affordable. Setting aside the legal advice, what are the Minister’s views? Sometime it is necessary to proceed with certain provisions and face the legal consequences further down the road.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I expect we will have some very interesting debates at the committee. On the Deputy’s last point, I hope I will prove to be a courageous Minister but not a foolhardy one. I do not want to put myself at hazard personally for robbing people of their money if I have no legal authority to make such decisions. One must be guided in reasonable measure by legal advice on what one can do. The financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation introduced by the Government of which Deputy Fleming was a part was — I am not sure “courageous” is the right word — difficult to enact, and I do not want to put a strain on it unnecessarily. I am anxious to avoid bringing the whole house down because we are dependent on the flow of moneys from these measures to sustain ourselves. Nevertheless, I take the Deputy’s point. The general objective is one of fairness and equity. There is a necessity to take action, as provided for in these measures. Even when we do not have the legal authority to implement pay cuts immediately for those on very high incomes, there is an aspect of moral suasion. We at least need to know how much the people concerned are earning before we can apply that moral suasion. We will see how we can move further on this matter in the course of time. On procurement issues, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is better placed to answer the Deputy’s questions and will do so later in the debate. In short, we must do better on procurement in ensuring better value for money and so on. Having said that, the Minister of State advises me that 95% of what we purchase as a state, by value, is purchased from providers in the State, which is certainly higher than I expected. This might not be the case numerically in terms of volume of contracts, but in terms of 95% of the value of all contracts, the beneficiaries are based in the State. This compares well with other much larger economies. In an economy the size of the United States, for instance, one can source everything within the boundaries of the state. That is virtually a closed economy because the scale is so great. However, for a small open economy like Ireland, 95% is an impressive figure. I take the Deputy’s point on public interest directors. It is somewhat jarring when people are appointed to perform a public interest role and subsequently take the position that they are captured by company law and have a responsibility to the company which supersedes or restricts their actions on the public interest side. I do not know how we will deal with that issue, but it is an interesting point which I fully accept. Regarding ministerial responsibilities, as I said, from the appointed day the property rights vested in the Minister for Finance shall transfer to me. However, in respect of disposals above €50 million, I am obliged not only to consult but to gain the consent of the Minister for Finance. In other words, we will act in concert on the large projects to which the Deputy referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, line 10, to delete “Constitution.” and substitute the following:

“Constitution;

“statutory instrument” has the same meaning as it has in the Interpretation Act 2005.”. 493 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 3

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, subsection (1)(h), line 25, to delete “which” and substitute “whom”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, lines 34 and 35, to delete subsection (2).

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, to delete lines 19 to 26 and substitute the following:

“(e) a company or body under the control, within the meaning of section 11 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, of—

(i) a company to which paragraph (b) applies,

(ii) a subsidiary to which paragraph (c) applies,

(iii) a body to which paragraph (a) or (d) applies, or

(iv) a public service body to which paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1) applies,

for the time being standing prescribed by the Minister.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, before section 4, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:

4.—(1) The Minister may by regulations provide for any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.

(2) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act, regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Mini- ster to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations.

(3) Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House sits after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. 494 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

This amendment provides for the insertion of standard provisions regarding the power to make regulations under the Bill. It refers to the content of such regulations, the laying of all regulations before each House of the Oireachtas and the annulling of regulations. This is a standard provision.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I often am a little curious about this standard provision. The amendment states: “Every regulation ... shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within ... 21 days on which that House sits after the regulation is laid ... the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.” Does the Minister of State know whether this happens very often? From my experience as a Deputy, statutory instruments are listed regularly and while they probably are placed in the Oireachtas Library, no one really knows about that. I wish to suggest a good practice for the House. I was Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and we asked the relevant Department to ensure all statutory instruments being issued by the Minister were forwarded to the joint committee. They came to us by way of correspondence, although I note we were obliged to fight to be put on the mailing list. It was wonderful because the joint committee had sight of statutory instruments that were relevant to local authorities in particular and it regularly commented on them and tabled them for discussion. However, I am not aware of any case in which we sought to annul such an instrument. I am unsure of the procedure but one probably would be obliged to have a vote in this House to so do. Is the Minister of State aware of this ever happening? It can happen, especially during the holidays, that even if a committee was aware of a statutory instrument, three months might elapse before it got around to discussing it. As part of the reform process, the Minister of State might consider taking the suggestion back to the Chief Whip or whoever that instead of simply laying a regulation before the Houses, it should be sent to the relevant Oireachtas joint committee for information and possible discussion. There used to be complaints to the effect that the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, as it used to be known, did not scrutinise European Union regulation sufficiently. However, I am absolutely certain that Oireachtas committees do not examine statutory instruments at all. Other Members who attended meetings of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government used to be intrigued by the manner in which we dealt with such issues. I should note that 90% of them were fine and it was good information of which to be aware. However, were issues to arise, one then could get further information or advice or could either tease out the matter or alert people to it. The Minister of State might discuss the general position in this regard. I realise this amendment simply proposes to add a standard procedure to the Bill. However, while the standard procedure in the House may work to an extent, it does not work to the benefit of all Members of the House.

Deputy Brian Hayes: The Deputy has made a valid point. This is a standard procedure and I refer to my experience of this issue from the other side of the House where the Deputy now sits. It was somewhat frustrating over the years that where a regulation was set out by a Minister and put on the Order Paper, it effectively came into effect within the aforementioned 21 day period. Moreover, as the Deputy rightly noted, the 21 day period is when the House is sitting. Consequently, in the case of an important regulation that requires some parliamentary scrutiny, it can be dreadfully frustrating if the House is not sitting and hence cannot provide itself with an opportunity to debate the measure. I do not perceive any difficulty with the Deputy’s suggestion that regulations should come to the attention of the relevant committee as a matter of course. When the committees are up and running, I do not see a difficulty in the relevant committee seeking an opportunity to debate a Minister’s proposals on regulations with him or 495 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] her. Moreover, it probably would be good standard practice that detailed discussion should occur on Committee Stage rather than in plenary session of the House. The amendment under discussion is a standard measure to the effect that the Houses are entitled to be aware of regulations Ministers may introduce and should be given an opportunity to debate them, if it is their wish. However, the regulations effectively come into law after the aforementioned 21 day period. I do not envisage any difficulty in the Deputy’s suggestion, which effectively pertains to secondary legislation. It would be good standard practice for there to be a role for committees with regard to these measures, which may well be controversial. This issue can be considered, although I am uncertain whether legislation would be changed to so do. Nevertheless, as a policy it certainly would be a good thing, when the committees are up and running, that regulations would come before them. Moreover, where a committee believed that such regulations should be debated, this should happen. The Deputy referred to the joint committee with responsibility for European scrutiny and my understanding is it exam- ines all the directives emanating from the European Union. Its members then decide whether to parcel out the measures to other committees, to debate them or simply to pass them without note. This should be a standard procedure in other committees and I agree with the Deputy’s suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5

Deputy Sean Fleming: I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:

“(5) The Minister shall—

(a) within 20 days of the passing of this Act lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, details of key procedures, ministerial responsibilities and target dates for each principal element involved in the preparation, announcement and enactment of the annual estimates of expenditure and such other financial measures as may be relevant to annual measures concerning the public finance of the State,

and

(b) where necessary, update these details no later than the 20th day of January each year.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Minister, within 20 days of the passing of this Act, to lay before the House details of the key procedures, responsibilities and timetables regarding the announcement and enactment of the annual Estimates procedure. The Minister of State should flesh out what precisely will be the procedures and what will happen. Hereto- fore, in the run-up to the summer recess, the Minister for Finance has sent very strict letters to each Minister directing them to prepare their Estimates with reductions in expenditure or advising them of the overall economic position. The Ministers commence work on conducting their Estimates discussions over the summer and then come back in September, after which bilateral meetings take place. In the past, one might meet a line Minister in the Chamber who would mention being obliged to leave to take part in a bilateral meeting with the Minister for 496 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Finance to discuss his or her departmental Estimate for the forthcoming year. The issues concerned were quite important because the line Department’s officials would have flagged the key issues they wanted the Minister in question to defend. I understand that, from henceforth, this will all be done with the Minister, Deputy Howlin. I seek a framework, timescale or structure in this regard. A structure is in place at present and there has been a move to the unified Estimates and budgets procedure within the past year or so. Previously, Estimates used to appear around the beginning of November, after which a debate on them would take place and, thereafter, the budget was presented at the beginning of December. This was a nonsensical way of doing business as no company, business or organisation can pass its budget in two halves, that is, by considering what it might spend in one month and assessing what income it might raise in another. This process rightly will now take place in a single procedure. While the Minister of State need not do so today, I ask that shortly after this Bill’s enactment, the timescale involved might be outlined. I suggest the Minister should outline the structure and the timetable in January of each year. Perhaps the Minister of State could give a brief outline of how he perceives the practicalities involved in having the Minister deal with the annual Estimates process and his dealings with each individual Department. The taking control of the Estimates procedure from the Minister for Finance is the key element of this Bill and the Minister of State should provide some information as to how he envisages it will work out.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I thank the Deputy. If I may, I will read out the response to the amendment and Members might then debate this further. The new section 5(5) proposed by Deputy Fleming would require the Minister to furnish a written explanation within 20 days of the passing of the law of key responsibilities and dates under the new budgetary and Estimates procedures. I understand the Deputy may be anxious to have further clarification as to the implications of the new legislative arrangements for the traditional budget and Estimates timetabling and the assessment of responsibility as between the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform and the Minister for Finance. While I am of the view it would be inappropriate to impose a legislative framework on matters which could best be dealt with at administrative level, I assure the Deputy that the new legislation will, in itself, involve a minimal degree of disturbance to the long-established budgetary and Estimates processes and to their timetabling. What is changing is that the Estimates related processes, including the bringing forward of the annual Book of Estimates, will now be a matter for the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. I anticipate there will be more wide-ranging reforms to the annual budgetary procedures and I certainly will reflect further on Deputy Fleming’s proposals in that regard. These reforms will be a matter for the fiscal responsibility Bill, which I anticipate will be brought before the Dáil later this year. I do not propose to accept this amendment at this stage. As the Deputy has rightly raised this issue, it is worth noting there must be much greater parliamentary scrutiny of budgets right across public administration. If we are to have a functioning Parliament which teases out and assesses expenditure items, this requires a fundamental change to the budgetary process. The Minister has already set out his views in the comprehensive spending review, of which the Deputy will be aware and which involves a much earlier anticipation of bilateral arrangements between Departments and also puts much greater focus and responsibility on line Ministers to bring forward proposals for expenditure items. What is crucial in this regard is the role given to parliamentary scrutiny. I understand a much clearer process will be put in place in the September to October period when we will consider options. Given the extraordinary deficit position we face and the importance of resolving this deficit 497 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] position, ideas emanating from parliamentary committees or from plenary session can be considered well in advance of the budget. The old-fashioned view of the budget, the idea that the Minister, in the manner of Moses, would come out with a tablet of stone and declare everything on budget day, is utterly antiquated and is of no use in the current predicament. If it is not clear as a result of this legislation, it certainly will be clear in the fiscal responsibility Bill which will be brought to the House later this year. This will provide a clear, ongoing framework where not only Government expenditure is assessed but also ideas from all sides of the House in line with other proposals from Government. This is the only way we will make progress and ensure better value for money and greater efficiencies. No change is envisaged to the presentation of the unified budget material. This is part of a move towards improving the quality of budgetary and Estimates information. Other improvements on the Estimates side include a move to a more output and outcome-focused presentation of the information which will continue to be developed and strengthened. This is the point to which the Deputy refers. We need a much sharper focus in committees throughout the year on the question of outputs and outcomes to ensure we are hitting our targets and there is buy-in to the level of support on spending programmes. In addition, the normal monthly and quarterly presentation of the Exchequer returns will continue to be available showing both the revenue and expenditure data in the normal manner. There is an acceptance across Government about the need to take radically different action on the comprehensive spending review. It has been correctly assessed that Parliament must be involved to a greater degree than was the case previously. Instead of believing the budgetary process is a four week period in December, we need to alter this perception radically to ensure Parliament has a role in the process.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I refer to the question of the Estimates. I accept the Government is new to office following a general election but the Estimates of expenditure for 2011 were published six months ago and this House has yet to debate a single Estimate for any Depart- ment, the exception being the Estimate for the Central Statistics Office to enable the payments to the census enumerators. I will not rehearse the point because the Chief Whip did not like my comments as they were a little harsh on the Government but my point was well made. We are nearly in July and half the year is over. The expenditure for the full year is €57 billion and half of this sum will have been spent while a great proportion of the remaining will have been committed. It will be a false, ridiculous, ludicrous charade of a debate in each of the committees in the coming weeks and then we will all troop back in here and vote it through. We would do a greater service if we acknowledged it as a charade on this occasion. This has been a problem historically, and there is no good reason for it. Years ago the budget was held in January and I understood that could affect the Estimates based on budget day announcements. The Department of Finance used to work on bringing the Finance Bill through the House in March and April and when this was finished, the Department concentrated on the Estimates debate and that was well into the year. The budget is now in the first week of December. In recent times, there have been little or no changes in the budget to effect the final Estimates. There is no reason the Estimates for 2012 should not be discussed in the House in December of this year, not halfway through 2012 when the money is already spent. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to assist in this matter because it does a disservice to the House to have committees discussing Estimates of expenditure when billions of euro under each of them have already been spent. We are not giving politics a good name. It is nonsense to talk about public accountability when the money is already spent. 498 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

With regard to the committees, Deputy Rabbitte did a report on the Committee of Public Accounts a few years ago with a recommendation to discuss the Estimates committee by committee. Most committees spend about 70 or 80 minutes in the entire year in discussion of a Department’s Vote for €5 billion or €8 billion as the case may be. The same committee will probably spend several meetings belly-aching about what the Government or the Department was doing, having not bothered to spend even a decent period of time discussing how the money would be spent by the Department. It is sometimes left to the Committee of Public Accounts to discuss departmental expenditure a year or two after the event. I ask the Minister of State to take my point into account which is not to do with legislation but rather is good practice. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Howlin, a unified budgetary Estimates process has been put in place and in my view, the Budget Statement on budget day should be a joint statement by the two Ministers. The Minister for Finance should announce the details of tax increases and all those matters relevant to the Department of Finance and perhaps matters relevant to the management of the national debt and banking issues. The Budget Statement is based on an analysis of Government expenditure. The Minister on budget day refers regularly to increases in social welfare payments and under various other headings of expenditure while other Ministers make announcements relevant to their Departments. If the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is responsible for expenditure, then he should be here on budget day announcing all the measures relating to expenditure which traditionally have been under the remit of the Department of Finance. Deputy Howlin will probably be pleased to hear me saying this and I do not know if the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has the same view. If the Government is to give the new Department its head and give it power and if the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is responsible for all the negotiations on expenditure in line Departments and for changes in grant schemes under various headings of capital expenditure, while acknowledging the Minister for Finance must approve capital expenditure, it is appropriate that the Minister responsible for public expenditure should be the one to make the announcement in the House on budget day. We should see a division of the roles and this is the reason for this new Department. It does not make any sense for the Minister for Finance to continue to make all the announcements on budget day when much of them will not relate to his Department and are relevant to the new Department with responsibility for public expenditure. Perhaps the Minister of State would comment on my point and convey it to the Minister. I am concerned the Estimates debate has been a bit of a charade and the same will happen this year but perhaps next year it could happen in a timely manner.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I understand the Deputy’s frustration. There are two reasons the Estimates debate for this year is somewhat confined. In the first instance the restructuring of Departments has delayed the entire process. As the Deputy pointed out we are at the midpoint of the year but it is only now with this Bill that we are putting together a new Department because there was a general election and a new Government. That has delayed the process and I appreciate it is frustrating. The other reason is that the committees have just been established. I do not know if Senators have joined them. The Deputy can be absolutely assured that, given the new Bill which will come in the autumn and the resolve of the Government to involve Parliament in a much more meaningful way across public administration, committee by committee, that we will see improvements. The Deputy makes an interesting point. Given that the Department of Finance has been effectively divided between the Minister, Deputy Howlin, on the public expenditure side and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, on the taxation and banking side we have two substantial 499 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] Departments with two separate focuses, working together in many cases because of the role they previously had. This will inevitably lead to some change on budget day. While the Minister, Deputy Noonan, might put forward views on taxation, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has responsibility for setting out a framework for public expenditure subhead by subhead, about which he will presumably make a statement. I do not know how the theatre of the event will be organised on the day. The Deputy is right in pointing out that the commitment of the Government in separating the Department of Finance and establishing two key Departments effectively provides a kind of joined up departmental approach. He is correct in saying there will be a role for the Minister, Deputy Howlin, on or close to the day. I cannot comment on that. As I said earlier, it is also important that if we are going to start looking forensically at expenditure, which I know the Deputy like all of us wants to do, it is crucial the committees not only have a bigger role but that the time line for them in assessing public expenditure profiles committee by committee happens much earlier in the year. Some of the secrecy of budget day, in terms of considering options, could be altered if those ideas were tested in the first instance before committees as they should be, rather than on the floor of the House. I know it is the intention of the Government that over the next while ideas on expenditure will be examined in a much more focused way and debated in committees. Whether that can be put in place this year is more difficult given the delays I mentioned. It is something we are committed to doing. We want to make sure that ideas are flagged much earlier in the process rather than at the tail end close to budget day. We are going to have a much more useful budgetary process where we can examine ideas and subheads rather than, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, having a ritualistic one hour every year. It has not worked for anyone. I suspect it did not work for the previous Government. I am sure there were Ministers in the previous Government who wanted an opportunity to tease out with committees the options they faced in terms of their dialogue with officials. As the Deputy rightly pointed out that has not happened. It has to change if we are going to make the process a more useful exercise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6

Deputy Sean Fleming: I move amendment No. 13: In page 8, subsection (1)(a), line 18, after “the” where it first occurs to insert the following:

“setting of certain revenues to be collected and the”.

The Minister will be in charge of public expenditure. The gross expenditure in this year’s Estimate is €57 billion. The net expenditure which the Minister says he is responsible for is €46 billion, a difference of €11 billion. The figure mainly refers to appropriations-in-aid. In his Second Stage speech he said he has an implied role over the appropriations-in- 2o’clock aid to be raised in various Government Departments before they settle on their net Estimates, but the Bill does not state that. It does not include any reference to the Minister who is responsible for public expenditure being responsible for certain revenues to be collected in connection with appropriations in the Department. It is a major gap. The points I made on Second Stage are still valid and are the reason I tabled the amendment. 500 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

I will give some examples. If the Minister sits down with the line Minister for Education and Skills, he will find school transport fees are an important source of income to that Department and have a major impact on its Estimate. According to the Bill the Minister will not have a role in setting school transport fees, yet has responsibility for the net Estimate for the Depart- ment. It is a bit strange that he tells us he is responsible for the revenue generated in the Department when the Bill does not state that.

Accident and emergency, hospital and prescription charges affect the total net expenditure for the Minister of Health to run the Department. There are several other examples. On the Department grant for various local authorities, revenue is generated in terms of water rates, refuse collection, the second home tax and the non-principal private residence tax. All of those taxes have the effect of reducing the payment made to a Department.

It also applies to CIE. How can the Minister agree an Estimate for it if here he has no influence on its revenue and profitability? The Minister claims he has a role in this area but the Bill does not state that. He also said he has an implied role because he is dealing with net rather than gross revenue. If he has a role he should put it into the Bill and refer to raising certain revenues to be collected as part of his function in regard to expenditure for a given Department.

The appropriations-in-aid can be up to €11 billion per annum which is a large figure. Does the Minister have power over them or does he only have authority over the gross estimate for Departments? They are connected; one cannot control half of the equation. I want clarification on the role of the Minister.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I thank the Deputy for tabling the amendment. Appropriations-in-aid are receipts that accrue directly to Departments or agencies and which may be retained by those bodies to offset the cost of delivering services rather than submitted to the Exchequer. The level of appropriations-in-aid is determined in the context of the annual Estimates process. The proposed amendment would explicitly transfer to the Minister functions relating to the setting of certain revenues. It is essential that there should be no ambiguity in the Bill as to the functions of the Minister for public expenditure and the Minister for Finance in regard to matters relating to revenue. The proposed amendment is somewhat ambiguous as it does not specify or clarify what certain revenues actually means, for which the Minister for public expenditure and reform might be responsible. It is intended that functions of the Minister for Finance in regard to appropriations-in-aid will transfer to the Minister for public expenditure and reform. This is reflected in two ways. First, in section 15(5) of the Bill the annual approved expenditure amount is the gross amount including appropriations-in-aid and second, the transfer of the functions of the Minister for Finance to other legislation in regard to fees, charges etc. to the Minister. These functions will mainly be transferred through the transfer of functions order. It is intended that the appropriations-in-aid to which the Deputy referred will be transferred to the Minister for public expenditure and reform, which would allow him to be clear about the amount to which the Deputy referred. I understand this will be done by way of transfer of function orders rather than legislation. The Deputy’s amendment proposes to set up certain revenues. The difficulty is that there is no precise definition of what the term “certain revenues” means. The Deputy can be assured, however, that under the transfer of functions order, it is the intention to transfer them across. The appropriate way to do this in legislation is by way of a transfer of functions order, rather than by primary legislation. 501 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, subsection (1)(a)(i), line 40, to delete “in relation to”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, subsection (1)(a), to delete lines 43 to 48 and in page 9, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

“(iii) all functions (including functions conferred by or under statute) relating to remuneration (including fees, allowances and expenses), appointment and terms and conditions of service of members, or members of boards, of public service bodies;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Amendment No. 16 has already been discussed with amendment No. 6. As amendments Nos. 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 84 are related, they may be discussed together.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, subsection (1)(a)(iv), line 7, to delete “sanctioning” and substitute “sanctioning or approval”.

This is a technical amendment that relates to the sanctioning of expenses incurred in the administration of any statute. It provides for both the sanctioning and approval of such expenses as opposed to just their sanctioning as referred to in the Bill as published. This is to capture the function of the approval of expenditure referred to in some of the statutes. Amendment No. 18 is also a technical amendment. It provides for the tidying up of the text of the subsection, although the meaning of the provision is unchanged. Amendment No. 22 is another technical amendment. It clarifies the Minister’s involvement in any pending legal proceedings concerning functions transferred by the Bill, to which the Minister for Finance was a party prior to the appointed day. Amendment No. 24 is a further technical amendment. It provides for greater clarity and specificity regarding the definition of “year”, that is. the financial year, rather than the calendar year. This provides for consistency throughout the Bill as “financial year” is referred to sections 6 and 15. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are also technical amendments. Amendment No. 26 provides for the inclusion of the collective citation for the Presidential Establishment Acts in section 16(4), as it would be inappropriate to insert it in Part 2 of Schedule 3. Amendment No. 27 provides that the reference to “enactment” in section 16(4)(b) be substituted for “those Acts apply or that enactment” to ensure both the Presidential Establishment Acts and Part 2 of Schedule 3 are encompassed by the subsection. Amendment No. 84 is also a technical amendment to insert a comma in the section. 502 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, subsection (1)(a)(iv), line 8, to delete “statute.” and substitute the following:

“statute;

(v) all functions (including functions conferred by or under statute) relating to superannuation, remuneration (including allowances and expenses) and terms and conditions of service of—

(I) a member of either House of the Oireachtas,

(II) a member of a local authority (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2001),

(III) a person—

(A) elected under the European Parliament Elections Act 1997 to be a member of the European Parliament, or

(B) who is regarded under that Act as having been elected to be a member of that Parliament,

(IV) a judge of a court established under the law of the State,

(V) a person who is the holder of a qualifying office within the meaning of Part IV of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 1938,

(VI) the President of Ireland.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, lines 20 to 26, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

“(4) The functions of the Minister for Finance in relation to each of the following bodies are transferred to the Minister:

(a) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;

(b) the Commission for Public Service Appointments;

(d) the Commissioner of Valuation;

(e) the State Laboratory.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 8

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 19: 503 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.]

In page 9, paragraph (e), line 43, to delete “and” and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:

“(f) formulate and develop policies in relation to the procurement of goods and services (including services consisting of the carrying out of works) by Departments of State or other public service bodies, and

(g) develop procedural frameworks for the procurement of goods and services (including services consisting of the carrying out of works) by Departments of State or other public service bodies.

(2) In this section “public service body” does not include a body specified in Schedule 1 or a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 155 of the Act of 1963) of such a body.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Michael McGrath: I move amendment No. 21:

In page 10, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

9.—The Minister shall—

(a) make available to the Minister for Finance upon his or her request, such officers of the Department as may be required to assist him or her in the consideration of measures to grant tax relief in order to achieve a specificpolicy objective in relation to the provision of a service or activity which is also funded through public expenditure, and

(b) where the Minister for Finance proposes any such tax relief prepare a statement of how this relief relates to public expenditure policy relating to the relevant service or activity.”.

This amendment relates to public expenditure which I assume falls within the remit of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The amendment seeks to ensure the Minister shall “make available to the Minister for Finance upon his or her request, such officers of the Department as may be required to assist him or her in the consideration of measures to grant tax relief in order to achieve a specific policy objective in relation to the provision of a service or activity which is also funded through public expenditure”. In addition, the amendment seeks that “where the Minister for Finance proposes any such tax relief”, the Minister shall “prepare a statement of how this relief relates to public expenditure policy relating to the relevant service or activity”. The purpose of the amendment is to bring clarity to the issue of tax reliefs, particularly where responsibility lies between the two Ministers. If any new tax reliefs are proposed, whose function will it be to propose them and bring the matter before the Cabinet?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The amendment relates to making officers available to assist the Minister for Finance in matters relating to the granting of tax relief, and a requirement that proposals for tax relief also require a statement on how the tax relief would relate to public expenditure policy. Notwithstanding the reorganisation and division of the former Department 504 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage of Finance, officials working in the new Departments will continue to work closely in the formulation of policy proposals. It is standard practice for the Department of Finance to consult all other relevant Departments when developing proposals that would impact on the various sectors of the economy. This has been a long-standing policy and will continue to be the case even after the new Department has been established. Therefore, I do not see a need for the proposed amendment. The introduction or abolition of tax reliefs is provided for in the finance Bill which is usually introduced shortly after the announcement of the annual budget. However, in recent years, there has often been more than one finance Bill. I think we have had three this year and the Government is only in its first session. The introduction of tax reliefs can be debated on Second, Committee and Report Stages of the finance Bill in both Houses of the Oireachtas. In addition, there is a general commitment to the completion of cost-benefit analy- ses, which is implicit in the programme for Government.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Will the Minister clarify if matters of public expenditure now fall within his remit?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Yes.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I understand an economic assessment is under way concerning certain tax and property reliefs. If any changes are proposed, will the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform bring such proposals to the Cabinet and ultimately, in the form of legislation, before the House?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Responsibility for taxation matters will remain with the Minister for Finance. Issues to do with amending taxation law will be brought to the Cabinet by the Minister for Finance, although obviously there will be consultation with me on its impact. For example, if either a taxation matter or a matter to do with appropriation-in-aid would impact on the total volume of expenditure in respect of any agency or programme, it would be a matter for consultation between us. However, responsibility for taxation matters remains with the Minister for Finance and such matters will be brought to the Cabinet by him. Members of the Cabinet will make a collective determination on them.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Just to be sure, will tax reliefs remain a function of the Minister for Finance?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: That is correct.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 22:

In page 10, line 20, to delete “in so far only as” and substitute “to the extent that”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to. 505 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

SECTION 14

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 23:

In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

“(4) (a) Any shares or stock issued to the Minister for Finance by a public body and registered in his or her name or held in trust on his or her behalf by any person, in accordance with a relevant enactment, shall on the appointed day, stand transferred to the Minister or be held in trust on behalf of the Minister, as may be appropriate, and from that day references in a relevant enactment to the Minister for Finance shall be construed as references to the Minister.

(b) This subsection shall apply notwithstanding any restriction contained in any enactment in relation to the transfer or alienation of shares or stock to which a relevant enactment applies.

“Act of 2004” means the State Airports Act 2004;

“relevant enactment” means—

(i) section 5 (amended by sections 6 and 14 of the Minerals Company Act 1945) or 15 of the Minerals Exploration and Development Company Act 1941,

(ii) section 16 of the Act of 1945,

(iii) section 6 or 14 of the Act of 1949,

(iv) section 15 or 19 of the Act of 1953,

(v) section 7B, 7C, 7E or 7G (inserted by section 16 of the Energy

(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006) of the Act of 1976,

(vi) section 19 of the Act of 1983,

(vii) section 17 or 22 of the Act of 1988,

(viii) section 19 or 24 of the Act of 1993,

(ix) section 19 of the Act of 1996,

(x) section 10 or 11 (amended by section 6(4) and the Schedule to the Act of 2004) of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998,

(xi) section 14 or 15 of the Act of 1998,

(xii) section 2 (amended by section 21 of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 2001,

(xiii) section 10 of the Act of 2004, or

(xiv) Regulation 40 or 45 of the European Communities (Internal Market in Electricity) Regulations 2000 (S.I. No. 445 of 2000).”. 506 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment No. 23 provides for the transfer to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform of shares or stock issued to the Minister for Finance by a public body and registered in the name or held in trust on behalf of any person. The list of legislation in regard to public bodies in which this subsection refers is listed in the amendment. Due to the different way in which shares or stocks are dealt with and constructed in the relevant legislation for each line Department, it was not possible to transfer these particular functions under the transfer of functions order. Each individual section of relevant legislation is itemised in this amendment. I do not need to go through them individually unless the Deputies want me to do so. The amendment also provides for the insertion of the Title of the Act of 2004, which is the State Airports Act 2004 and it provides for the vesting, management, operation and development of Dublin Airport, Cork Airport and Shannon Airport. We had a brief discussion earlier on a question asked by Deputy McDonald regarding these matters. The actual holding of stocks and shares currently vested by a range of legislation, all of which are listed in the amendment, in the Minister for Finance will transfer to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The divesting of those will be a matter for me as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in consultation with the Minister for Finance. The divesting of shares or stock above the value of €50 million will require the formal consent of the Minister for Finance.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 15

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 24:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 24, to delete “year” and substitute “financial year”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I move amendment No. 25:

In page 12, lines 1 to 7, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:

“(6) The Minister for Finance may make recommendations to the Minister as respects—

(a) the proportion of the annual approved expenditure amount or revised annual approved expenditure amount, as the case may be, that, having regard to fiscal and economic conditions, he or she considers should be applied to—

(i) meet current expenditure requirements, and

(ii) meet capital expenditure requirements,

and,

(b) the level of appropriations-in-aid which should be raised.”.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Does the Deputy wish to discuss the amendment?

Deputy Michael McGrath: I ask the Minister to bear with me. 507 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Deputy Brendan Howlin: If it is helpful I can reply to it first.

Deputy Michael McGrath: Yes.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: This amendment proposed by the Deputy opposite will give the Minister for Finance the function of making recommendations as to the level of appropriations- in-aid that should be raised. Appropriations-in-aid are receipts that accrue directly to Depart- ments or their agencies and which may be retained by those bodies, to offset the cost of delivering services, rather than submitted to the Exchequer. This is a matter that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will discuss with each Department in the course of the Estimates negotiations. As Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform I will manage these issues within the annual approved expenditure amount agreed by the Government. It would not seem necessary also to provide a statutory role for the Mini- ster for Finance in regard to these matters and for that reason I do not propose to accept the amendment. In essence, the role of the Minister for Finance will be to establish the envelope of expenditure, that would be then presented to me and I will negotiate with the line Departments, having regard to appropriations-in-aid that accrue to different functions and different line Depart- ments. I believe that is the best way of doing it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 16

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Amendment No. 26 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 35 to 41, inclusive, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 57 to 59, inclusive, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 76 to 78, inclusive, 81 to 83, inclusive, 87, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98 and 102 are related to amendment No. 26 and they may be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 26:

In page 12, subsection (4), lines 34 and 35, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

“(a) for the purposes of—

(i) the Presidential Establishment Acts 1938 to 1991, or

(ii) an enactment specified in Part 2 of Schedule 3,

and”.

The other amendments being taken with amendment No. 26 are a list of other enactments that are all encompassed. Although it looks like a complicated job lot, it is a simple matter. These all relate to transactions from the Central Fund. Payment of moneys in and out of the Central Fund remain with the Minister for Finance. For the purposes of clarity and consistency of accounting, that was what we determined and for good financial practices. The Accounting Officer for the Central Fund will remain the Secretary General of the Department of Finance. A large number of related policy functions are transferring to me, as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In order to link the policy functions of the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform with the payment role, which will remain with the Minister for Finance, this 508 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Bill provides a role for me as public expenditure Minister in requesting that certain payments be made or in consenting to or approving of certain payments from the Central Fund. The way it will work is that having agreed the expenditure level with a line Minister within the envelope, I will ask that an agreed volume of money be paid out for an agreed function. The actual cheques will be signed. The authority to release the money from the Central Fund will be made by the Minister for Finance and his Secretary General will remain the Account- ing Officer. The purpose of the list of amendments being taken with this amendment is to list the areas covered under this. They include the Shannon Election Act, the Electricity Supply Act, the State Land (Workhouses) Act 1930 which date back a while, the ESB Shannon Fisheries Act and there are two more pages of enactments which I need not take up the time of the House reading. This is simply to provide for the procedure we have agreed between the two Depart- ments on the handling of the Central Fund.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I am not objecting to any of those amendments but at the core of the potential dilemma the Government may face with these twin Departments is, on the one hand, identifying what is to be spent and, on the other hand, having the authority to spend. I understand the logic of retaining the Secretary General of the Department of Finance as the Accounting Officer and that is logical but I hope there will be singularity of purpose and view as between the Minister and his twin brother, as it were, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, in the Department of Finance on these matters and, whatever about political controversy, that it does not become a source disruption or create a logjam in resourcing and financing front line services in particular.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I wish to ask the Minister a practical question. With regard to all these functions that require the consent of the other Minister, how will that work in practice? Presumably, the Minister will have to have a paper trail every time he wishes to exercise a function under this legislation, which requires the consent of the Minister for Finance. Will it be a case of letters or e-mails being sent back and forth between ministerial offices? Presumably it cannot be a verbal consent. Can the Minister give us details of how it will work in practice?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: There are a variety of ways depending on the specific legislation referred to in terms of process. For example, section 16 Part 2 of Schedule 3 lists a number of enactments under which the Minister for Finance shall not pay moneys out of the Central Fund unless it is specifically requested by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. There are other areas where I would make the request of the Minister on behalf of a line Minister. The Deputy is correct in that there will be a requirement for a paper trail in this regard. A formal request would be made to comply with this legislation. This is not new. The consent of the Minister for Finance in regard to expenditure is a norm. Any line Minister expending money would be expected to have the formal consent of the Minister for Finance, but this is how this scenario will work. As I do not know whether the House has debated the issue, I will address it using broad strokes. The spending envelope will be fixed by the Minister for Finance in consultation with me. I will then negotiate the Estimates process on a departmental basis and we will agree a package to be put before the Government. It is a good, co-ordinated method that will ensure double oversight. To address Deputy McDonald’s point, the two Ministers and Departments have worked in great harmony to date. Despite my lack of legal authority, I have had a most harmonious relationship with the Minister for Finance who has signed off legally on my decisions to date. I look forward to being able to exercise these decisions in my own right shortly. 509 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Deputy Michael McGrath: Has any scoping exercise been conducted to estimate the number of occasions on which consent will be required in each calendar year if the Minister is to be able to perform his functions under the Bill? It is only a formality and we know how Ministers exercise various functions, but given the new configuration of the two Departments and the fact that many functions require the consent of the Minister for Finance, is there an estimate of the number of occasions on which consent will be required? I am considering the logistics which could prove cumbersome. Who will manage the process?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I am sure no one has counted the number. These matters arise daily. Any request for expenditure from the Central Fund will be made to the Exchequer section of the Department of Finance. This procedure will continue, but the request will be made by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. It will not generate any great new bureaucratic difficulty. It might lead to better oversight procedures in terms of expenditure, given that there will be a Minister whose exclusive role will be to oversee expenditure and bring about reform and change as opposed to having a Minister with all that responsibility in addition to the macroeconomic responsibilities which, as the Deputy opposite knows full well, occupied full time the working lives of Ministers for Finance in recent years.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 27:

In page 12, subsection (4)(b), line 37, to delete “that enactment” and substitute “those Acts apply or that enactment”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 17

Deputy Michael McGrath: I move amendment No. 28:

In page 12, subsection (1), line 42, after “by” to insert “section 4 of”.

I will allow the Minister to respond.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The order of 1980 refers only to transfer orders under section 4. I have consulted the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and do not believe it is necessary to refer specifically to the section in this provision. For drafting purposes, the amendment in the name of Deputy Sean Fleming has proved helpful. He has obviously been thorough and I commend him for making this suggestion. When the amendment was submitted, I asked my officials to re-examine the matter and seek the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. The advice I have received is that it is safer to stay with the wording of the Bill. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 29:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 6, to delete “consult” and substitute “consult with each other”.

Section 17 relates to the functions of economic planning and development that may be performed by the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The 510 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage amendment clarifies that the Ministers should consult each other in the performance of these functions. I do not know whether Deputy Sean Fleming has been around for long enough, but he will probably remember the old Department of Economic Planning and Development, which was an idea of Professor Martin O’Donoghue. Was the Deputy around at that stage?

Deputy Sean Fleming: No.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The legislative basis for that Department is still in place. It was simply incorporated into the role of the Minister for Finance. Since the legislative function of economic planning and development continues, we are reciting it as something in respect of which both Ministers will have a role. We will consult each other on economic development matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 18

Deputy Sean Fleming: I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, lines 11 to 13, to delete subsection (2).

The purpose of the amendment is to remove the subsection that reads: “The Minister shall not perform a function transferred by subsection (3) of section 7 without first consulting the Mini- ster for Finance in relation thereto”. This provision relates to emergency financial measures. If the Minister has responsibility for these issues, he should have autonomy. He will be pleased that I am proposing he have such powers. I do not know whether he heard my suggestion concerning related matters during his absence from the Chamber. On budget day much of the Budget Statement deals with Government expenditure. I suggested that, if the Government was sincere about having two equally robust Departments, the Minister for Finance should address taxation, financial and national debt issues on budget day, while everything relating to changes to social welfare payments and so on should be announced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Sean Fleming: He or she should not just issue a press release after the event like any other line Minister. The Minister opposite will probably agree with this suggestion which I made to the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, during his absence.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: What did he say?

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Minister understands my amendment is intended to give him greater autonomy and I hope he will agree with me that he should have it. He would be well capable of making these decisions on his own without having to consult the Minister for Fin- ance. I have full confidence in him.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I am grateful to the Deputy for having trust in me and his attempt to ensure I will not be overshadowed on budget day. As I stated just before he returned to the Chamber, I have a good relationship with the Minister for Finance and we have enough to do individually to keep us occupied. In fact, at recent Cabinet meetings, where I sit beside the 511 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] Minister for Finance, he told me he believed we needed a third Minister because we were so busy. We are fully occupied. The amendment refers to the legislation in Part 2 of Schedule 2, under which the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform should consult the Minister for Finance. Part 2 refers to the review provisions in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. The Bill before us provides that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will, as correctly pointed out by Deputy Fleming, consult the Minister for Finance in carrying out his review functions under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. The legislation in question requires that regard be had to the revenue of the State and the national competitiveness and it is, therefore, appropriate that the Minister for Finance would be consulted on such matters. The Exchequer pay bill for 2011 alone is estimated at €14.7 billion. The role of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 in the determination and contain- ment of the cost of such a significant amount of public expenditure demands that the primary role of the legislation should fall to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Section 7 of the Act requires that the Minister for Finance undertake a review of the operation, effectiveness and impact of this legislation, having regard to the overall economic condition of the State and national competitiveness, before 30 June 2011 and annually thereafter. Deputy Fleming may have been in the House during enactment of that legislation and will be aware that, while it is draconian legislation, it is required by the perilous state of our economy. It is right and proper that it would be reviewed. Both parties in Government agree it should be reviewed and this is provided for in the programme for Government. As it is an expenditure matter, that function should fall to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Also, as it impacts on the State’s revenue the Minister for Finance must be part of that process and should be consulted. Although I am extremely grateful for Deputy Fleming’s support, I believe the process in place, whereby I would undertake the review in consultation with the Minister for Finance, is probably the appropriate way of advancing this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 31:

In page 13, subsection (2), line 30, to delete paragraph (j) and substitute the following:

“(j) Financial Services Ombudsman’s Bureau;

(k) Financial Services Ombudsman Council.”.

This amendment provides for the inclusion of the Finance Services Ombudsman’s Council in the list of bodies under the aegis of the Minister for Finance. Functions in relation to the superannuation or remuneration of its members of staff are performed by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The amendment seeks to insert in subsection (2) paragraph (k) Finan- cial Services Ombudsman Council. Are there staff attached to the council or is it just a body that meets? If there are staff attached to it, were they formerly staff of the Financial Regulator’s 512 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Office and what type of people are being included under this paragraph? I know this section deals with superannuation and remuneration but the amendment seeks to add paragraph (k) Financial Services Ombudsman Council, to the list of bodies with which the Minister will deal, namely, Central Bank Commission, Investor Compensation Company Limited, Credit Union Advisory Committee, National Treasury Management Agency, National Treasury Management Agency Advisory Committee, National Development Finance Agency, National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission, National Asset Management Agency, Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Financial Services Ombudsman’s Bureau. Is there are a case for some of these bodies to be merged? I would like to know the organis- ational structure of these organisations. I acknowledge that some of them are stand alone organisations and that the Central Bank Commission is different to the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The National Development Finance Agency was tasked some years ago with dealing with public bodies procuring assets worth more than €20 million. Such bodies had to, apart from in the tendering process, obtain clearance from the National Development Finance Agency which is an offshoot of the National Treasury Management Agency. Much of the work done by the National Development Finance Agency relates to providing advice on the financing of public private partnerships in relation to motorways, roads or schools. I recall that the National Development Finance Agency had to approve financing of the contract for the four schools built in Laois-Offaly. However, there are no new public private partnerships owing to the difficulty of raising money and the cost of capital. The Government is finding it difficult enough to raise its own funds without paying a premium to the private sector to finance some of these projects. The Minister will be aware that many of the planned public private partnerships have been withdrawn owing to the cost of financing projects. Are there many staff attached to the National Development Finance Agency and what work does it perform now? Do we need it any more? Could staff attached to that body not be returned to their former offices? Perhaps the Minister will say if he believes there is scope for rationalisation of these bodies, many of which are creatures of the Celtic tiger era. The Minister knows the era these were all established. Are they all needed now?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy has raised a good question to which I do not have an answer. However, I will obtain an answer for him as part of the comprehensive review of expenditure undertaken. My attitude does not differ much from that of the Deputy opposite. In the current financial straits in which we find ourselves, every agency of State and expenditure must be justified. When drawing up the reform proposals for the Labour Party, the rubric I used was, could this body be merged with another and is there a compelling reason for it to exist to do a function that no one else can do? Deputy Fleming is correct that there was a tendency during the past decade to create a new agency in respect of every issue that arose. Each new agency had a chief executive, a head of PR, board, building and so on. The Civil Service did not diminish much in numbers at the time all of this happened. For example, creation of the Health Service Executive did not appear to impact dramatically on the volume of civil servants in the Department of Health and Children, although at one stage they were all doing the same job. The health boards were separate. We have created offshoots with different types of functionality. Many agencies are efficient. We need to carefully examine every agency of State. The comprehensive review of expenditure requires every line Minister to do that and to report back to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform at an early date. All of that information will feed into the Exchequer in terms of the next budget. I cannot answer the specific question raised by the Deputy because I do not know how many staff are attached to the body concerned. My speaking note states that this amendment relates to functions in relation to superannuation and remuneration of the 513 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] members of staff of these bodies will be performed by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I presume there are staff attached to these bodies although I do not know specifically how many. I will revert to the Deputy with the specific detail in this regard. Deputy Fleming asked the broader and more pertinent question of whether these agencies can be merged. Whatever scope exists for merging agencies or the resumption or subsumption of their functions back into a parent Department is very much on the agenda in the context of the comprehensive review of expenditure. There are some mergers already in the public domain and the Deputy can be assured that there will be many more. The term “quango” is often used but these are in many instances important agencies. Section 19 provides that “the Minister for Finance shall not perform a function in relation to superannuation or remuneration of members or members of the board..... of”, for example, the National Treasury Management Agency. While that might be well and good for members and members of the boards, there is no control of superannuation or remuneration of employees of these agencies. These are all matters we might fully explore in our discussions during the comprehensive review of expenditure and more specifically within the committee, so we might be able to probe jointly the functioning of these bodies to see if we can get better value.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): We move to amendment No. 32. Amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 32:

In page 13, before section 20, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

20.—(1) A function (including a function consisting of the power to make a statutory instrument) of the Minister for Finance performed or purportedly performed by the Minister after the commencement of this Part, shall be deemed to have been validly performed by the Minister for Finance, if, at the time of the performance or purported performance of the function, the Minister believed that the function vested in him or her by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) of section 7.

(2) Where the Minister performs or purports to perform a function of the Minister for Finance, it shall, in any subsequent proceedings (whether civil or criminal), be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that at the time of the performance or purported performance of the function the Minister believed that the function vested in him or her by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) of section 7.

(3) In this section “function” does not include a function of the Minister for Finance to which section 14(3), 15, 16, 18 or 19,orPart 4, applies.”.

I understand amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, are being taken together. These amendments relate to the purported performance of functions. On amendment No. 32, functions regarding the superannuation, remuneration, appointment, terms and conditions of staff of public service bodies, or of members of boards of public service bodies, are being transferred collectively from the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform under section 514 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

7. Functions regarding sanctioning or approving expenses incurred in the administration of any statute are also transferred under section 7. Given the volume of statutory provisions involved in these functions, it is necessary to provide for a potential scenario where one Minister may inadvertently perform a function of the other. Therefore, a function of the Minister for Finance performed by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform shall be valid if at the time the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform believed that the function was vested in him under section 7(1) or 7(4). This does not include those functions for which the specific statutory provisions are explicitly transferred under this Bill. Therefore, it does not include a function of the Minister for Finance to which sections 14(3), 15, 16, 18 or 19, or Part 4, applies. Amendment No. 33 is the reverse. Should the Minister for Finance perform a function of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, it shall be valid if the Minister for Finance believed that the function had not been transferred away from him. This does not include those functions for which the specific statutory provisions are explicitly transferred under the Bill. Therefore, it does not include functions transferred to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform under section 6(1) or 6(2), section 7(2) or 7(3), or a function to which sections 14(3), 15, 16, 18 or 19, or Part 4, applies. While it sounds convoluted, it is a saver clause. Where functions are explicitly transferred, they can only be exercised by the Minister to which they apply. However, where there might be any doubt and where there is consultation and other matters, if the wrong Minister exercises the function, it is deemed to be valid so that we do not have any hiatus in the proper functioning of Ministers in regard to the disaggregation of functions that is enumerated in these sections.

Deputy Sean Fleming: What of amendment No. 34, which is in the same group?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I should have included it. Amendment No. 34 provides for a situation where doubt arises as to which Minister has responsibility for any particular function vested under this Act. The Deputy probably raised this matter, which is not unique. While I do not expect there to be any doubt, in the event of doubt arising about a particular function being the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform or the Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach shall make that determination. There is a similar provision in the Mini- sters and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 1939 which is simply replicated here and which deals with the issue of a doubt about functionality. If I recall correctly, the position of Minister for Supplies was created during the war, before the Acting Chairman’s time. There was doubt about the authority of the Minister for Supplies to carry out a function and to decide whether it was his function or not, so it was left to the Taoiseach to make that determination. This is simply carrying that through. It is a belt and braces job, as the Deputy will appreciate.

Deputy Sean Fleming: That is the point. I find it unusual that we have these three amendments. In layman’s English, the Minister is essentially saying that if the wrong Minister makes a decision and he genuinely believed at the time he was the right Minister to make it, it is valid. I do not believe this would apply to anybody else in the country. If a person tells a judge “I made a mistake; I genuinely believed I was not driving over the speed limit”, the case does not get thrown out or dismissed. I have never heard the like of this in my life. It would be the best defence. If this was to apply nationwide, no law would ever be implemented.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: If the Deputy had only been here in 1939, he would be very familiar with it. 515 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Deputy Sean Fleming: I will come to that. I am intrigued to know the precedent for this as I had never heard of it. I can understand why there would be panic at Government level during a world war, with bombs dropping on the North Strand and a need to get such a measure through in a hurry. However, we are not in a war situation at present.

Deputy Colm Keaveney: We might be in a worse situation.

Deputy Sean Fleming: This is why I suggest the overall legislation has been a bit rushed in the past week. If we had taken an extra week or two, we would have been able to be more thorough and remove all doubt, and not have to insert these measures stating, “If in doubt, even if the Minister was wrong, if he thought he was doing the right thing, it is his right”. This would not wash anywhere. In a way, it is one law for the Minister and one law for everyone else in the country. Nobody else could ever offer a defence like that in court. Laws we pass in the Oireachtas should be even-handed, should be the same for every citizen and should not give powers to a Minister that one would never dream of giving to another citizen, even if the mistake was genuine. If the Minister or I make a mistake in front of a judge, we pay the penalty. We could not say “I genuinely believed I was doing right at the time”. With regard to the position of the Taoiseach, I can understand that events were happening quickly during the war period and legislation had be passed. However, if there is a legal dispute, it is the courts which adjudicate on it. If somebody challenges the signature of a Minister or a Department for taking a particular action and it ends up in court, it is a matter for the Judiciary to decide whether a Minister had the legal authority to act. In a way, the Taoiseach is now taking the adjudication role that would normally be the function of the Judiciary. It is an example of how rushed the legislation is. It is extraordinary that a “dispute shall be determined by the Taoiseach” and that we are essentially writing into the Bill a dispute resolution mechanism.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Is that not very far-seeing?

Deputy Sean Fleming: Politically, the new Department has been set up because of the difference between the two parties in Government and both have to be satisfied. It is unfortunate that we must formally insert an amendment for a dispute resolution mechanism between the two Ministers which is to be decided on by the Taoiseach — I presume he would consult the Tánaiste. It does not look the best that this dispute resolution mechanism must be stitched into the legislation. While the Minister may say it is a belt and braces approach, it raises questions as to why this is necessary in the calm light of day and why everything was not done thoroughly in the beginning. If it had been, we would not need the Taoiseach to have a dispute resolution mechanism between the two Ministers. I hope this section never has to be invoked. That is all I will say.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy is being a little mischievous. It is not at all untoward for this sort of provision to be inserted. The Deputy says he might have understood it in terms of the Second World War but, of course, we did not have the Second World War in Ireland.

Deputy Sean Fleming: There were bombs on the North Strand.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: We had the Emergency, and I think we have an emergency now — we have an economic emergency. There are those out there who think that current conditions, in terms of the parlous state of the economy, are akin to a war. What is laid out here is fundamental change — the Deputy is correct in that. We are creating a structure that is fundamentally different from the Department of Finance that has existed 516 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage since the foundation of the State. We are taking out the expenditure side and the public service management side of the Department and forming those into a Cabinet-ranked Department of State. We have all sorts of new architecture involved in that but it is good. Most people who have looked objectively at the intention and the structure are supportive of it. The Deputy repeated this notion that it was somehow a compromise because of political ambition, that two parties claimed the same job. That is absolutely untrue. I certainly did not voice any ambition to be Minister for Finance.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Joan Burton did.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I was anxious this architecture would come about because of the analysis we had done in advance of the general election that required, if genuine reform was to be achieved, a Cabinet Minister with access to the expenditure line. We were advised by the best authorities who had carried out significant public sector reform abroad that this was the model to replicate. I had meetings with the head of the civil service in New Zealand, which is undergoing public sector reform, when he was visiting here to learn from us. I told him we had only been doing this for 100 days and he replied that we have good ideas. I want to learn from New Zealand in return and I have asked them to send back ideas arising from their reform process. This structure will work. For the avoidance of legal doubt, we said that where a function might arise in the future that cannot be envisaged at present, and that is presumed to be a matter for the Minister for Finance or the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure, it is deemed to be legal. It important because there might be Exchequer requirements for such a belt and braces approach to ensure the State is not exposed to any cost. It is a limited provision, applying only to the general description in section 7(1) relating to public service matters and section 7(4) relating to a broad range of functions transferred for bodies under the aegis of the proposed department of public expenditure and reform. If something new arises and there is a lack of clarity over whether it should be a matter for the Minister for Finance or the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure, there must be a mechanism to determine it lawfully, legally and quickly, which is that it should be determined by the Taoiseach, as we have allowed for here. There was a question about the Financial Services Ombudsman Council. It has seven members appointed for five years. They are representatives of industry, academia and the money advice and budgeting service. It is chaired by Mr. Jewell of the Consumers Association of Ireland. Its role is to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Financial Services Ombudsman, to advise the Minister on matters relevant to the operation by the board of the scheme, and to prescribe guidelines under which the ombudsman operates. We will have an interesting time in future going through all these functions to see if they are justified. We must ensure every agency established in the past ten or more years has an endur- ing function and cannot merge or disappear with causing damage to the operation of the State.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I hope the possible confusion never arises. That will be the best test of the legislation. Will there be a board of seven people? Apart from being paid to sit on the board, do they have superannuation rights? Is that why it is being included in this section? When people are appointed to a board for a term, they are paid, but do they also accumulate pension entitlements when they are no longer board members for a position that may involve attending meetings once a month? That is worth looking at.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy makes a valid point. We must examine all these organisations. I was looking at the full functioning of the council and it has an important function. 517 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] It appoints the Financial Services Ombudsman and his deputy. We will look at that in due course when the committee is up and running to see what each of the bodies created in the past does, if it is still fit purpose, whether there are economies we can make or mergers we can operate or whether the body can be subsumed back into a Department. There was a tendency in the last decade, whenever a function appeared on the horizon, to create a new agency to carry it out.

Amendment agreed to

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 33:

In page 13, before section 20, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

21.—(1) A function (including a function consisting of the power to make a statutory instrument) of the Minister performed or purportedly performed by the Minister for Fin- ance shall be deemed to have been validly performed by the Minister, if, at the time of the performance or purported performance of the function, the Minister for Finance believed that the function had not been transferred to the Minister by this Act.

(2) Where the Minister for Finance performs or purports to perform a function of the Minister, it shall, in any subsequent proceedings (whether civil or criminal), be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that at the time of the performance or purported performance of the function the Minister for Finance believed that the function vested in him or her.

(3) In this section “function” does not include—

(a) a function transferred to the Minister under subsection (1) or (2) of section 6 or subsection (2) or (3) of section 7,or

(b) a function of the Minister to which section 14(3), 15, 16, 18 or 19,orPart 4, applies.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 34:

In page 13, before section 20, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:

22.—If any doubt, question, or dispute arises as to the Minister of the Government in whom any particular function is vested by virtue of this Act, such doubt, question, or dispute shall be determined by the Taoiseach.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 35: In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

21.—The Shannon Electricity Act 1925 is amended— 518 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(a) in subsection (1) of section 11, by the substitution of “Upon the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for Finance may” for “The Minister for Finance may”,

(b) in subsection (2) of section 11, by the insertion of “given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(c) in subsection (4) of section 14, by the insertion of “after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 36:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

22.—Section 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and subject to” for “subject to”, and

(b) in subsection (6), by the substitution of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced” for “shall be advanced”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 37:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

23.—Section 7 of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act 1930 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (2), of “by the Minister for Finance, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “out of the Central Fund”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 38:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

24.—Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1930 is amended by the substitution of “the Minister for Finance, after having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, has formed the opinion” for “the Minister for Finance is of opinion”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 39:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

25.—Section 3 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1931 is amended by the substitution, in subsection (1), of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform and subject to the limitation imposed by this section,” for “(subject to the limitation imposed by this section)”. 519 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 40:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

26.—Section 12 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1934 is amended, in subsection (1), by the insertion of “with the approval of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform and” after “Minister for Finance may,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 41:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

27.—Section 13 of the Shannon Fisheries Act 1935 is amended by the substitution, in subsection (1), of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and subject to this section,” for “(subject to the provisions of this section)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 46 to 48, inclusive, 50, 79, 80, 86, 88, 93, 101, 105 to 108, inclusive, and 110 to 127, inclusive, are related and will be taken together by agreement.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

28.—The Local Loans Fund Act 1935 is amended—

(a) in subsection (3) (amended by section 7 of the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act 1940) of section 3, by the insertion of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “the Minister shall”,

(b) in subsection (2) of section 5, by the substitution of “the Minister may, as and when he thinks proper and having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “the Minister may, as and when he thinks proper”,

(i) the insertion of “, after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “the Minister shall”, and

(ii) by the insertion of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” before “such other Minister.”,

(d) in subsection (1) of section 8, by the insertion of “, and shall, from time to time, consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to the form of such accounts” after “in relation to the fund”,

(e) in subsection (1) of section 17, by the insertion of “, after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “The Minister may”, and 520 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(f) in subsection (2) of section 17, by the insertion of “, after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “the Minister shall”.

These amendments relate to the borrowing function of State bodies and the role of the Minister for Finance in consenting to such borrowing. This function is being transferred to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Similarly, if the Minister for Finance requires to be consulted about such borrowing, that function is transferred to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Where in any enactment previously the Minister for Finance was the person whose consent was required for a State body to borrow, it will henceforth be a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The reason for the long list of amendments is to list all the places where such borrowings would occur. The list covers everything from the Local Loans Fund Act to the District of Fergus Drainage Act, the Universities (Local Government) Acts and the Kilkenny Design Workshop Limited Act. That is why the recital is so long but in general the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will have the policy responsibilities for these bodies so it is important that Minister has the role of granting of consent for such bodies to borrow money.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Amendment No. 42 seems to deal with the local loans fund, which states that “the Minister for Finance shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform”. The Minister for Finance retains control of the local loans fund and if he wants to make payments into it, he must consult the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. I refer to amendment No.50, which seeks to amend the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1945 in order that the Minister for Finance can exercise his power after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. In that case it works in the 3o’clock opposite direction. The Minister might explain, in general terms, why as Minister he will have power in respect of certain funds when he consults with the Minister for Finance whereas in respect of others that Minister has the power and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform must consult with him. I do not describe this as extra red tape but, in regard to consultation generally, does this mean a chat in the corridor or will there be a formal mechanism for consultation? At the end of the process will there be a paper trail showing that a Minister proposed to do such and such and provided documentation to be sent to the relevant Minister, who then signed it, showing there was consultation? Will this consultation process stand up and be testable according to legal scrutiny should there ever be a dispute as to whether functions were performed properly? We do not want to find a gap in the file three years later, with no evidence of consultation. We do not want to be over-bureaucratic about every instance where a Minister could take action without having to consult another Minister but we must now put a new structure in place in respect of this type of consultation. We all know from planning and everything else to do with legislation that if a process is not done properly, whether a consultation in a planning application, an environmental impact statement or any such, it can be found to be faulty. Will we see statutory instruments in respect of the working of this consultation process? We need to see what is backing up the process. The Minister might comment on that. I presume the local loans fund relates to local authorities. Why is the Minister for Finance retaining control of that particular area? Am I correct to think that this section, in spite of all the areas included, excludes NAMA? Is NAMA being dealt with separately and outside the remit of this legislation? It seems to be outside the remit of this group. Is it being treated as a separate case, strictly under the remit of the Minister for Finance, as is the case now, and will no consultation be required with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform? 521 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.]

It is a question of borrowing and we all know about borrowing requirements. The Minister will be aware that during the past two years all local authorities have received forms in respect of their level of local borrowing and bank account balances. A circular was issued under the EUROSTAT borrowing requirements, looking for statistics in order to build up a picture of our national debt. All local authorities received letters — I believe it was the year before last — stating that they were not allowed to spend any development levy funds they had in their account in the coming year because that balance was intended to make up the overall Govern- ment balance. The authorities were allowed spend only the new funds that came into the development account during the course of the year. At the end of the year the requirement was that there not be less in the account than there had been at the beginning of the year. The Minister may recall that, even though he was not directly involved, being in Opposition at the time. It crossed the desk of the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the previous Dáil. These measures have implications. Must all these bodies submit monthly or annual returns to one new Department or other in regard to their current bank balances making up the overall Government balance? The Minister might comment on that, and the NAMA situation.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy made a number of important points. On the general definition of what consultation actually constitutes, I consulted and had discussions on the form it should take. Where there is statute provided for there will have to be a formal consultation, whether this is a formal meeting or an exchange of letters. It must happen as required by the new Act. In general terms, most of these bodies will transfer to me but the local loans fund will not. This fund, established in 1935, will remain under the control of the Minister for Finance. However, a role is being provided for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform because of the policy remit involved in these matters. The purpose of the local loans fund in 1935 was to provide a system of local authority capital funding. Since 1988 new loan approvals for the fund are very limited, as the Deputy probably knows well, because they have been replaced, by and large, by direct Exchequer grants for individual local authority capital projects, such as water, sewage, and so on. In the case of housing loans the housing finance agency was established in 1986 and provided local authorities with the requisite funds, at variable interest rates, to provide for housing. In essence, therefore, the local loans fund is being wound down and does not have a long-term future. It will stay with the Minister for Finance because essentially it is a funding mechanism rather than an agency of State. Regarding NAMA and its remit, NAMA will remain under the aegis of the Minister for Finance. The board and its members were already dealt with in an amendment and I will have a role in determining those. Unfortunately, as I indicated, I will not have a role in determining the pay and conditions of the employees of NAMA because they are contracted on an individual basis. That is something I must reflect upon in order to see how I might get a role in that regard. I reiterate I do not believe anybody should be on the public payroll unless we are entitled to know how much he or she is being paid, but in the case of NAMA we do not know this. I am sure the officials are doing great work, although there may be disagreements on that. One of the early decisions of this Government was to ensure there would not be a second tranche of properties transferred to NAMA, what was referred to as “NAMA 2”. That did not happen and we got the consent of the troika to stop that transfer. It seems there is a jaundiced view of NAMA’s operation. 522 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

The Deputy asked a general question about all the bodies under the different remits, whether they have funds and how the general Government balance is determined. He is right. We need to ensure there is proper accounting and reporting of all funding available. This is certainly done in regard to local authorities, vocational educational committees and everybody else, so we can have an accurate picture, because the general Government balance is determined not only by the Executive’s balance sheet, so to speak, but by the State’s balance sheet in all its forms and agents. The troika required that. In my 107 days, or three months odd in office — we should probably stop counting — I have been impressed by the accounting mechanisms in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and for that reason was very glad to launch the website I mentioned in order to give that information to the general public. In that way, we will have close to real time a monthly report on where we are in terms of balances, expenditure, procurement and so on. Not that many countries in the world could be as accurate and comprehensive and as quick in providing that data. I present to Government on a monthly basis the current balance sheet in terms of income and expenditure so we know where we are. Deputy Fleming is right; this filters down to all the agents of the State. If there are hidden pots of money I would like to discover them although I would be surprised if there were any. It would be worse if there were deficits we had not discovered. We need to know the complete picture and we do, as far as I am aware.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I am very confused about the lack of accountability in NAMA and do not understand it. Did the Minister state it would not come under his wing?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Minister for Finance will retain NAMA.

Deputy Mick Wallace: Right. There seems to be a lack of accountability in regard to NAMA. Who decided what the wages would be?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: That is a very good question.

Deputy Mick Wallace: Who decided who would get the jobs? I have encountered many people who worked for banks and in real estate who have moved into NAMA. It seems they are getting more money now than they ever got in their previous jobs. I do not understand that, given that they are doing much the same type of work. It is questionable whether they should have got the work when one considers that they were part of this mess in the first instance. Why are they getting much more money now that they are working for the State, which is pretty short of money? Who should I ask these questions of?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy raises some very pertinent questions. I made my general view clear yesterday, when I announced the new cap on salary levels within the public service. I said that nobody in the public service should earn more than €200,000, which is a healthy top-level salary, and that nobody in the commercial semi-State sector should earn more than €250,000. The exception to that will be the National Treasury Management Agency and its subsets, one of which is NAMA. Deputy Fleming will be much more familiar with this than I am. Did he participate in the famous all-night sitting on the NAMA legislation?

Deputy Sean Fleming: No, I was not on that committee.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: The Deputy was not part of that. He was spared that ordeal. As he is aware, the NAMA legislation was passed by this House during an all-night session. I remind the Deputies opposite who spoke about rushed legislation that it was decided that the NAMA Bill could not wait until daylight. It had to be passed during the night. Deputy Wallace will be aware that a Wexford man — Dr. Bacon — was the genesis of this device. Perhaps I 523 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] should not be name-checking people. As I understand it, Dr. Bacon was brought in as a consult- ant to the then Minister for Finance. He devised the NAMA concept as a vehicle for deleverag- ing the banks’ burden of impaired assets and loans. That was the policy platform of the previous Administration. This Administration is determined not to go ahead with the second tranche of it. The Acting Chairman will stop me any moment now because what I am saying is not appropriate to the debate on this Bill.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): I understand that.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It is a matter primarily for the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for NAMA. He will ensure it continues to function in the best interests of the economy. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Noonan, will make any changes that are required in that context.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): If Deputy Wallace tables questions to the Minister for Finance on the matter, I am sure he will get some replies.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I have some very interesting questions for him.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The amendments we are discussing highlight another difficulty I have with this Department. I will not contest it too extensively with the Minister, but I have to make an observation about the consultation between the Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance. Every Member of this House will understand that the public service can be very good at passing the buck. Public servants often say somebody else decided the policy or made the decision. When one contacts the guy who made the decision, he says he was only following the policy made by someone else and the wheel goes around. I will give the House an example from my early days as a Deputy. I do not know how I was clever enough to do what I did in this case. I must have been caught out once or twice before I learned. This example relates directly to the amendments before the House. Some years ago, the National Roads Authority was changing the signage used on national primary routes in various areas. Its workers arrived in County Laois to put up the big signs used on open road- ways to declare the maximum speed limit or warn motorists about major junctions. When we discovered that it wanted to place one of these monstrosities on the lovely green in Durrow, we all reared up and asked what was going on. We told the engineer that the works were not on because they would destroy the village. We said smaller signs would be more appropriate to a little urban area. We got the run-around before the job was eventually stopped because it was going to be a shambles. At that stage, I decided to send identical letters to the local authority and to the NRA. I will not say I was clever because I should not praise myself. The letters asked who authorised or approved the signs and who decided they should be located in Durrow. The responses I received were brilliant. All Deputies will have received similar letters. The NRA said it was responsible for deciding policy and providing funding, but that decisions on the placement of signs were made by local authorities. The local authority wrote back to say that the signs were being put in place under a scheme designed, approved and tendered by the NRA and that the specifics of the contract were approved by the NRA before any work commenced. That is how the circle goes around. I am worried that this legislation will make the wheel of irresponsibility or of not taking responsibility bigger. I will give another example. If a local authority wants to propose a roads project, it has to contact the NRA. Up to now, the NRA would have contacted the Minister for Transport for policy approval, or else it would have been agreed under the overall scheme. On occasion, the Minister for Transport would have had to get it cleared by the Minister for Finance. Under the 524 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage new system, not only will the local authority, the NRA and the Department of Transport be involved, but the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance will be involved as well. The Minister will have to consult the Minister for Finance, or vice versa as the case may be. Five bodies will have direct responsibility for implementing the work, carrying out the work or setting the policy. We are making the wheel bigger. The way the system works means that the wider the sphere of responsibility for a particular action, the less likely it is that an individual will be held responsible. We are getting away from accountability for decisions. The Department of Finance will have to be consulted when the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is setting policy. Each line Department will have its own role further down the road. Can the Minister understand my fears?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I can, but I will do my best to disabuse the Deputy of them.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Will the new Department add another layer?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It will not. The broad decision-making authority with regard to expenditure matters, which has traditionally been vested in the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance, will simply become my responsibility and that of my Department. There is no new tier at all. That is what is happening, in a broad sense. I will comment on the matters raised by the Deputy. Major road projects are matters for the capital programme. As the Deputy knows, the capital programme is agreed by the Cabinet on a collective basis. We have to get the balance right when deciding how much to spend on roads, hospitals or schools. Everybody chips into that process by making a bid before the balance is determined. The proposition will be brought by me, as the Minister responsible for expenditure. The bids will be made by the line Departments and the overall capital programme will be determined. The role of the Minister for Finance in those matters will be to sign the cheques. I will be responsible for policy on line expenditure. As I have explained, the Central Fund will remain under the control of the Minister for Finance. For the most part — it will depend on the actual function, as set out in this Bill — he will simply act on my request to release funds for agreed projects. I will consult him on some matters. No great extra line of bureaucracy is associated with this approach. It provides for joined- up government and ensures there is greater scrutiny of expenditure. The Minister responsible for expenditure does not have to deal with the macroeconomic situation or attend ECOFIN meetings, but has Cabinet-ranked responsibility nonetheless. We also have the economic management council, which comprises the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and me. Overall economic policy is determined by that body, as a subset of the Cabinet. This system ensures, for the first time, that all elements of government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, the NTMA and the Central Bank, understand Government policy and sing from the same hymn sheet. I do not think I am revealing any State secrets when I say that during the negotiations for the programme for Government, one of the things that jarred most with us was the lack of joined-up government. When we came into office, we found there were different takes on the solutions to problems being pursued by different agencies of the State. We need to have one forum for making economic policy — the economic management council — and every agency of government should feed into that. The committee’s findings should be dissemi- nated across the public service. They should be used in all interactions with external funders like the IMF, the EU and the ECB and with our colleagues in other European governments. That will ensure they know where Ireland stands and what Ireland’s policy is. It will allow us to map our way to economic sustainability in an incremental way. That is what we have set about in the first three months. The establishment of this Department is an important step in 525 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] having such an integrated, co-ordinated system that allows the focus of Government to be shared to the best advantage of reaching economic sustainability.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Amendment No. 43, a new section the acceptance of which involves the deletion of section 21 of the Bill, was already discussed with amendment No. 26.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 43:

In page 14, before section 21, to insert the following new section:

21.—Section 15 of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937 is amended—

(a) in subsection (2), by—

(i) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the substitution of “by the Minister for Finance, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” for “by the said Minister”, and

(b) in subsection (3) (inserted by paragraph (c) of section 56 of the Act of 2001) by the insertion of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “the Minister for Finance may,”.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Can I speak to this new section?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): The Deputy certainly can.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The amendment provides that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform shall prepare a scale of maximum charges for returning officers in university constituencies, and it will be paid by the Minister for Finance with which I have no difficulty. Has the Minister information on the scale of fees that apply to returning officers? How many returning officers are there? There is one for every Dáil constituency. The Minister might confirm the matter in relation to Dáil constituency returning officers is already in the legislation. He might advise me on whether we have come to it. I do not see an amendment on it and perhaps the Minister is happy with the section. He might tell me because I want to speak on that section, if, as I presume, it is in the Bill. We are dealing with the university panels and I presume the Dáil, for which, I think, the Clerk of the Dáil is the returning officer, are already in the legislation. On the university panels, I refer specifically to the scale of fees for returning officers for the Seanad elections in the section of the Act to be amended. I suspect the biggest fee item to be incurred would be the cost of postage to each of the electorate, many of whom are abroad or deceased. We are all aware from general elections of the state of the voters’ register and we might come to that separately if it is covered in the legislation. On the Seanad election, I imagine there must be significant waste of money. I propose the following in the case of the Seanad. I do not know how many candidates there were for the Seanad election. Every one of them sent us literature, once, twice or, in some cases, three times, and those of us who are graduates were getting that stuff. I was voting for the NUI panel. There were approximately 25 candidates on that and I certainly received post from the 526 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage majority of them. I literally had a drawer full of stuff come polling day and I do not know whether I ever got to look at one item or another. There is enormous waste. I am giving the Minister a concrete suggestion for saving money. I made it at the Committee of Public Accounts and I think the Department of Finance, in its response, was receptive to it. It did not happen on this occasion but there is no reason it cannot happen. I could take a general election or the Seanad election as an example, but I will take the general election to keep it simple. As with a referendum where a book goes to every house or every premises where there is a registered voter, it is possible with technology that a single book should go to every registered voter in a constituency with a pen-picture. If there are ten candidates, the ten pen-pictures would be in one little booklet so they get one item of literature, not ten different items of literature from ten different candidates, all being paid for by citizens and taxpayers. If the Referendum Commission can put a booklet together, it is possible. When handing in nominations — this applies to the Seanad — one must supply one’s photograph etc. and that process could include supplying the photograph for this book. If they can get ballot papers printed with all of the photographs and a short pen-picture of the candidate including his or her name and details, there is no reason that could not be put into booklet form and one document issued to each voter instead of if there are 20 candidates each of them sending it at massive cost. The cost of duplication runs into several million euro. The electorate gives out bitterly about the wasteful expenditure at election time and it certainly applied here in the university panels. It is a way of reducing costs. The Minister, as he will be consulted on the scale of fees, should insist that they help reduce the cost. An Post will object to this because it is a revenue stream for it during an election campaign. There are 60,000 on the register of electors for the NUI or TCD. I am not quite sure of the exact figures but there is an enormous cost. It is possible with technology to get a booklet printed quickly within the first week of a campaign after nominations are in and to send that booklet at the cost of one postage stamp rather than 15 candidates sending their own stuff at the cost of 15 postage stamps. When the Minister is consulted on the scale of fees, will he take that into account? He might tell me whether the parallel general election situation is covered in this legislation.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I am impressed by Deputy Fleming’s ability to make a significant input on an issue that is entirely tangential to the Bill. Amendment No. 43 relates to section 15(2) of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937. That 1937 Act provides that the Minister, now the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, shall prepare a scale of maximum charges for returning officers in university constituencies, and that every such returning officer shall be paid by the Minister for Finance, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, out of the Central Fund. Deputy Fleming makes a good case in terms of rationalising the expenditure. On the last occasion I was in Government, as Minister for the Environment, I introduced the Electoral Act 1997, for the first time putting a cap on electoral expenditure generally. This is a matter primarily for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Obviously, they should look at the cost of elections generally. However, there are two different issues. One issue is whether it is constitutionally possibly to prohibit a person’s spending. One can set spending limits within reason, but I am not sure one can be so prescrip- tive on how persons spend their own money. It is a matter, not for me but for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, to explore and I am sure Deputy Fleming will explore it with him. 527 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

As a general rule, I agree there is scope for further limiting the amount of expenditure at elections. Incumbents enjoy advantages in that they might not need quite so many posters etc. If one is introducing a new candidate, it is a different kettle of fish. People get annoyed if there are five or six voters in a house and each voter gets his or her own, not piece of literature but set of literature. At the last general election my office received several telephone calls from persons stating they did not want any more and I replied that this was the first round, every other party would have it in the system and even if one rang them, they could not stop it because one cannot merely pick out individual houses not to get it as they are delivered uniformly. No doubt it is something Deputy Fleming can raise with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I think the Minister missed my point. I refer specifically only to expenditure paid for with taxpayers’ money, not to expenditure by candidates. I refer specifically to expenditure under the Minister’s remit.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Is it to do with referendums?

Deputy Sean Fleming: I refer specifically to expenditure of the Minister’s Department and the Department of Finance. The Secretary General of the Department of Finance came before the Committee of Public Accounts on a special section in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report about returning officers’ fees in previous elections, some of whom five years after the election had never filled their complete statement of affairs. Some of them — I will not name the constituencies — spent €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 in excess of a returning officer in an identical neighbouring constituency. We, in the Committee of Public Accounts, looked at this. Obviously, that is the cost of polling day, but the cost of the election is borne by the taxpayer through the Minister’s Department. I refer only to this, not to anything to do with candidates’ expenditure.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I thought Deputy Fleming was referring to literature coming in doors.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I refer not to leaflets but to litir um thoghcháin where the postage is paid for by the taxpayer. I suggest that one litir um thoghcháin issue and that the booklet, paid for by the taxpayer, should include the name of all candidates, as is the case on the ballot paper. All I am saying is the biggest cost in an election to the taxpayer is everybody’s postage. I accept the returning officer must send a polling card to each registered voter. After that, however, there should be one communication for each candidate, rather than each candidate using the free litir um thoghchán at taxpayers’ expense. That is paid for by the Department and is a major cost in elections. The matter comes directly within the remit of the Minister’s Department.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I will examine it, as I would any suggestion with regard to expenditure reduction. The Presidential election is the next due to be held and, if we have time, perhaps we might take up that suggestion. I will raise the matter with colleagues.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 21 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 44: 528 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

22.—Section 3 of the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act 1937 is amended by the insertion of “, after having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “If and whenever the Minister”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 45:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

23.—Section 15 of the Industrial Alcohol Act 1938 is amended by—

(a) the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), and

(b) the insertion of the following subsection:

“(1A) All moneys required from time to time by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to meet payments required to be made by him to the Company in respect of any shares subscribed for or taken up by him under this Part shall, on his request, be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof by the Minister for Finance.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 46:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

24.—Section 5 of the Hospitals Act 1939 is amended, in paragraph (g), by—

(a) the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “the Minister for Finance”, and

(b) the substitution of “the Minister for Finance” for “that Minister”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 47:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

25.—The District of Fergus Drainage Act 1943 is amended—

(a) in subsection (5) of section 4, by the insertion of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “the Minister may”, and

(b) in subsection (6) of section 4, by the insertion of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “the Minister may”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 48:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section: 529 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

26.—The Transport Act 1944 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 16, by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(b) in subsection (2) of section 22, by—

(i) the insertion, in paragraph (a), of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “the Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the insertion, in paragraph (b), of “, after consultation by him with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “Minister for Finance”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 49:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

27.—Section 21 of the Act of 1945 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

“(1) All moneys from time to time required by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to meet payments required to be made in respect of any shares subscribed for by him under this Act shall be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof by the Minister for Finance.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 50:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

28.—Section 3 of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1945 is amended, in subsection (1), by the insertion of “exercised after consultation by the Minister for Finance with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “at the discretion of the Minister for Finance”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 51:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

29.—Section 40 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1945 is amended in subsection (1), by the substitution of “shall, after consultation by the Minister for Finance with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be prescribed” for “shall be prescribed”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 52:

In page 14, before section 22, to insert the following new section: 530 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

30.—Section 53 of the Turf Development Act 1946 is amended, in subsection (1) (amended by section 13 of the Turf Development Act 1981), by the insertion of “made after the Minister’s having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “recommendation of the Minister”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Amendment No. 53 not moved.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 54:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

24.—The Sea Fisheries Act 1952 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) (amended by section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1982) of section 18, by the insertion of “made after the Minister’s having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “recommendation of the Minister”,

(b) in subsection (1) of section 21, by the insertion of “with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” before “after consultation with the Minister”,

(c) in subsection (5) of section 21, by the insertion of “, after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “may”, and

(d) in section 22, by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”.”.

This amendment relates to Central Fund payments. We have already discussed the issue, not in terms of this amendment but in terms of the role of the Central Fund and how payments are to be made. The amendment relates to section 81 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1952. It provides that the Minister for Finance may, on the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and after the Minister has consulted the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, advance sums to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the Central Fund. The amendment to section 21 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1952 provides that, for the purposes of providing for the repayment by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara of the advances made to it from the Central Fund, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara shall make to the Minister for Finance half yearly payments commencing on such date and continuing for such a number of years for such an amount and payable at such times as the said Minister, with the approval of the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, and after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall appoint. Section 21 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1952 provides that all sums paid by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to the Minister for Finance under this section on foot of interest shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such a manner as the said Minister may, after consultation with the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, direct. Section 22 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1952 provides that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara may, with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, 531 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.] borrow temporarily by arrangement with bankers such sums as it may require for the purpose of providing for current expenditure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 55 not moved.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 56:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

26.—The Insurance Act 1953 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) (inserted by section 1 of the Insurance Act 1983) of section 2, by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(b) in subsection (1A) (inserted by section 2 of the Insurance Act 1969) of section 2, by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(c) in subsection (4) of section 2, by the substitution of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance” for “shall be advanced”,

(d) in subsection (7) of section 2, by the insertion of “given after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “directions of the Minister for Finance”, and

(e) in subsection (1) of section 3, by the insertion of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “may”.”.

This amendment deals with export credit insurance. The amendment to section 2(1) of the Insurance Act 1953, as inserted by section 1 of the Insurance Act 1983, provides that for the purposes of encouraging the exportation of goods and the provision of such services as are specified by order, the line Minister, with the consent of the Minister of Finance and the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, may make arrangements for giving guarantees in connection with the export and manufacture, treatment and distribution of goods and the provision of services or any other matter conducive to that purpose. The amendment to section 2(1)(a) of the Insurance Act 1953 provides that the line Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, may make arrangements for giving guarantees in respect of the rendering of services to which this subsection applies. The amendment to section 2(4) of the Insurance Act 1953 provides that any amount required to meet a liability incurred by the line Minister under the section shall, with the approval of the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund and shall be repaid to the Central Fund from moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The amendment to section 2(7) of the Insurance Act 1953 provides that all moneys received by the line Minister in pursuance of arrangements made under this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in accordance with the direction of the Minister for Finance given after consultation with the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. 532 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

The amendment to section 3(1) of the Insurance Act 1953 provides that the line Minister shall cause to be prepared in such form as the Minister for Finance may, with the consent of the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform, direct the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of each financial year in respect of arrangements under section 2 of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 57:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

27.—The Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1954 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 5 (amended by section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1958), by the insertion of “and with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “on the recommendation of the Minister”,

(b) in subsection (1) of section 8, by—

(i) the substitution of “The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to such conditions as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may think fit” for “The Minister for Finance may, subject to such conditions as he may think fit”, and

(ii) the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will take up and the Minister for Finance will pay” for “he will take up and pay”, and

(c) in subsection (2) of section 8, by the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform” for “him”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 58:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

28.—Section 2 of the Turf Development Act 1957 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by—

(i) the substitution of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and subject to such conditions as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may think fit” for “subject to such conditions as he may think fit”, and

(ii) the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will take up and the Minister for Finance will pay” for “he will take up and pay”, and

(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “by him”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 59:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section: 533 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

29.—Section 11 of the Transport Act 1958 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (2), of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 60:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

30.—Section 10 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Act 1959 is amended by the substitution, in paragraph (a), of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”.”.

The amendment to section 10(A) of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Act 1959 provides for the reference to the Minister of Finance holding shares in the company. We seek to change the shareholding from the Minister for Finance to the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 61:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

31.—Section 55 (amended by section 251 of the Finance Act 1992) of the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act 1960 is amended by—

(a) the substitution of “the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “the consent of the Minister for Finance”, and

(b) the substitution of “may, upon the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be paid” for “may be paid”.”.

This is another Central Fund payments matter. It is a standard provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 62:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

32.—Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1962 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (1), of “made after the Minister’s having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “recommendation of the Minister”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 63:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

33.—Section 2 of the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1963 is amended by the insertion, in paragraph (a), of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “at any time,”.”. 534 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 64:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

34.—The National Building Agency Limited Act 1963 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 6, by the insertion of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “may,”,

(b) in subsection (2) of section 6, by the insertion of “after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(c) in subsection (1) of section 7, by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(d) in subsection (1) of section 8, by the insertion of “with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “shall”,

(e) by the substitution of the following section for section 10:

“10.—(1) There shall be paid into, or for the benefit of, the Exchequer, in such manner as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform considers appropriate, all dividends, bonuses, net proceeds of sale and other moneys received by him in respect of shares of the Company.

(2) There shall be paid into, or for the benefit of, the Exchequer, in such manner as the Minister for Finance, after having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, considers appropriate—

(a) all moneys received by the Minister for Finance in repayment of, or in payment of interest on, moneys advanced by him under section 6 of this Act, and

(b) moneys repaid to, or recovered by, the Minister under subsection (4) or (6) of section 7 of this Act.”,

and

(f) in subsection (a) of section 11, by the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform” for “the Minister for Finance”.”.

The amendment to section 6(1) of National Building Agency Limited Act 1963 provides that the Minister of Finance may, with the consent of the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform and on the recommendation of the line Minister, make advances to the National Building Agency for the carrying out of its objectives. The amendment to section 6(2) of National Building Agency Limited Act 1963 provides that advances under this section shall be made on such terms as to repayment, interest and other matters as may be determined by the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. The agency is being merged into the new Housing and Sustainable Community Agency. We are making arrangements by transferring functionality from the Mini- ster for Finance to the Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and reform. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 65: 535 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

35.—Section 4 of the Transport Act 1964 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) (inserted by section 3 of the Transport Act 1981), by the insertion of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “may,”,

(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “may”, and

(c) in subsection (4), by the insertion of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 66:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

36.—Section 1 of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act 1971 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (1), of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “may,”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 67:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

37.—The Act of 1976 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) of section 9, by the substitution of “with the consent of the Mini- ster for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “with the consent of the Minister for Fin- ance and of the Minister for the Public Service”,

(b) in subsection (2) of section 9, by the substitution of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “with the consent of the Minister for Finance and of the Minister for the Public Service”,

(c) in subsection (1) of section 22, by the insertion of “made after the Minister’s having consulted with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “recommendation of the Minister”, and

(d) in subsection (2) of section 22, by the insertion of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “may”.”.

The same principle is applied here, in this instance in respect of Bord Gáis Éireann.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 68:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section: 536 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

38.—Section 7 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act 1976 is amended—

(a) in subsection (2), by—

(i) the substitution of “falls to be paid by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “falls to be paid by the Minister”, and

(ii) the substitution of “shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be paid by the Minister for Finance” for

“shall be paid by the Minister”,

and

(b) in subsection (3), by—

(i) the substitution of “received by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “received by the Minister”, and

(ii) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 69, 71, 72 and 75 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 69:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

39.—Section 14 of the Wildlife Act 1976 is amended by the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service” in each place that it occurs.”.

These amendments relate to references to the requirement for the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Finance. We are taking an opportunity to tidy up the language, which was somewhat convoluted. The amendments reference the Wild- life Act 1976, the Housing Finance Agency Act 1981, the Kilkenny Design Workshops Limited Act 1982 and the Transport (Re-Organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act 1986.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 70:

In page 14, before section 23, to insert the following new section:

40.—The National Film Studios of Ireland Limited Act 1980 is amended—

(a) in section 2, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(b) in subsection (1) of section 3, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(c) in subsection (2) of section 3, by— 537 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

(i) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the substitution of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance” for “shall be advanced”,

(d) in section 4, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance” in each place that it occurs,

(e) in section 5, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(f) in section 6, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(g) in section 12, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(h) in section 13, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(i) in subsection (2) of section 14, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(j) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 16, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Brian Hayes: I move amendment No. 71:

In page 14, before section 24, to insert the following new section:

24.—The Housing Finance Agency Act 1981 is amended by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service” in each place that it occurs.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 72:

In page 14, before section 24, to insert the following new section:

25.—Section 8 of the Kilkenny Design Workshops Limited Act 1982 is amended by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service”.”.

Amendment agreed to. 538 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Acceptance of amendment No. 73 will involve the deletion of section 24.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 73:

In page 14, before section 24, to insert the following new section:

24.—(1) Section 16 of the Act of 1983 is amended by the substitution, in subsection (1), of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “with the consent of the Minister for Finance and, where appropriate, the consent of the Minister for the Public Service”.

(2) Section 17 of the Act of 1983 is amended by the substitution of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “with the consent of the Minister for Finance and, where appropriate, the consent of the Minister for the Public Service”.

(3) Section 24 of the Act of 1983 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (1), of “, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”.

(4) Section 27 of the Act of 1983 is amended—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), by the insertion of “, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “the consent of the Minister”, and

(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “the consent of the Minister for Finance”.

(5) Section 29 of the Act of 1983 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a):

“(a) The Minister for Finance may, on the request of the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform and after consultation with the Minister, make available to the postal company a sum not exceeding €63,500,000 to finance capital works.”,

and

(b) in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), by the insertion of “following consultation by him with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “determined by the Minister for Finance,”.

(6) Section 31 of the Act of 1983 is amended, in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Upon the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the” for “The”.

(7) Section 46 of the Act of 1983 is amended, in subsection (9) (amended by section 11 of the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996), by—

(a) the substitution of “Minister for Finance shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” for “Minister for Finance shall”, and

(b) the substitution of “with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “with his consent”.

(8) The Second Schedule to the Act of 1983 is amended by the substitution, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3, of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, shall” for “the Minister for Finance shall”.”. 539 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

The amendment provides, in regard to section 16 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, that the articles of association of An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann shall be in such form as may be approved by the line Minister with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The amendment also provides, in respect of section 17 of the 1983 Act, that no alteration in the memorandum of association or articles of association of either An Post or Telecom Éireann shall be valid or effectual unless made with the prior approval of the line Minister, given with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The provision relating to section 24 of the 1983 Act states that all moneys required by the line Minister to meet payments required to be made by him or her in respect of shares taken by him or her shall, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced to him or her by the Minister for Finance out of the central fund or the growing produce thereof. The provision in respect of subsection 27(1)(a) of the 1983 Act stipulates that An Post and the board of Telecom Éireann may borrow money for capital purposes but where a borrowing is not from the Minister for Finance, the consent of the line Minister, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Finance is required. The amendment also provides, in regard to subsection 27(2) of the 1983 Act, that An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann may borrow money temporarily but that the aggregate at any one time of such borrowing shall not exceed such amount as may be provided by the line Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I will not waste time by going through the remaining provisions of the amendment. In essence, it provides for a role in all of this for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I am curious as to why this provision is apparently being dealt with in a different way to the others. For example, there is reference to borrowing powers for working capital, which is not mentioned in other sections. There is also reference to payments for pension gratuities and other allowances in respect of members of staff of the former Depart- ment of Posts and Telegraphs. Will the Minister indicate, now that he is taking over policy in this area, what gratuities and allowances are still being paid over and above pensions to those staff?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I have not taken it over yet, so I am not fully briefed. Where we needed a specific amendment to deal with a particular case there is a stand-alone amendment; in other cases there is a recitation amendment. The difference in this instance arises for the very reason to which the Deputy alluded, namely, that there are residual responsibilities to the former civil servants who were employees of An Post. In the case of Eircom — formerly Telecom Éireann — a new fund, the Eircom No. 2 fund, was established to provide for the Exchequer pre-vesting the pension liability, and funding of €1.016 billion was provided for this purpose. As a result of differing actuarial estimates of the liability, the trustees of the new Eircom fund did not accept full liability. Final settlement was made in 1999. As a result, there is an understanding that the Exchequer retains a liability should the moneys provided in the No. 2 fund prove insufficient to meet the cost of the full pension liability in respect of service given by employees pre-vesting. In short, when Eircom was privatised the trustees wanted an assurance that should the pension fund that was set up not prove robust enough to meet the earned liabilities that there would be a contingent liability in place.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I am intrigued by the Minister’s response. Some weeks ago the Government announced the imposition of a levy of 0.6% per annum on private pension funds, amounting to 2.4% over four years. That levy will impact on the ability of the Eircom pension 540 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage fund to pay its pensioners and the Minister is saying that this shortfall will effectively be underwritten by his Department. This is completely new information to me. Arising from the imposition of the new pension levy, what other categories of pension funds will the Department underwrite as a consequence of reduced resources being available to pay pension liabilities? The Minister will probably say the figure is indeterminate and I accept that he cannot provide the information today because the legislation is not yet enacted. However, I ask that he come back to the House with clarification of this matter and that the Department contact the Eircom pension fund to ascertain the extent of the possible exposure even before the pension levy is imposed. Perhaps the State’s liability was well known at the time but I do not recall being made aware of the information. It is emerging now that we seem to have given some underwritten guarantee to the pension fund of a private company which made a great deal of money for certain individuals before it was privatised. We are all aware of its current financial difficulties and that it has changed hands repeatedly. My concern is that there will be a severe temptation for shareholders to raid the pension fund if they know any shortfall will be underwritten by the Irish taxpayer. The Minister must tease out this issue from the perspective of the shortfall or potential liability, as well as the contingent liability. In particular, what will be the cost to the taxpayer that must be picked up through, or with the consent of, the Minister’s Department or the line ministry, to make up for the shortfall now existing in the aforementioned pension fund on foot of the pension levy the Government introduced a fortnight ago? I ask the Minister to begin to tease out this matter.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Essentially, the questions asked regarding the pension levy are a matter for the Minister for Finance. The pension levy is a levy on funds to generate money to invest in jobs and while one can always contrive an argument, on balance few people would argue that it was not a good mechanism to leverage money for the important purpose of job creation from funds that were put aside by people who received considerable tax relief. The Deputy’s question presumes there is a deficit in the fund——

Deputy Sean Fleming: I do not know.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: ——but I have no reason to believe that. I can make the inquiries for which the Deputy has properly asked. As I indicated in my earlier reply, the trustees of the fund — even though a considerable amount of money, more than €1 billion, was provided for it — were smart enough to insist that there would be a contingent liability should the event arise that it would not be sufficient to meet the pre-vesting debt liability. The pre-vesting debt liability only relates to service given before vesting day. Consequently, it is not something that is newly-accruing and the scale should be known. It does not relate to pension costs arising from the current pension fund provisioning, if the Deputy is following me.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Fully.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Consequently, the point is, it is incorrect to argue the taxpayer will meet the cost of the now accruing pension liability. Nevertheless, for my benefit and that of the Deputy, I will the state of the Eircom No. 2 fund and the estimate of liability of the State, if any. There may not be any liability. I hope this is the case. I hope the fund is sufficiently robust to meet the pension rights of individuals who will have accrued pre-vesting pension entitlements.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I agree with the Minister and hope I did not give the impression that I was talking about recent employees or of pension liabilities that have accrued since the 541 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] organisation was privatised. It relates to those who formerly were staff of the old Department of Posts and Telegraphs or of Telecom Éireann, some of whom benefited from ESOPs.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Pre-1999.

Deputy Sean Fleming: While I do not recall the exact year, all Members will have encountered them in their constituencies and many of them are still alive and well.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Thank God.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Yes, thank God. Consequently, there could be a pension levy attributable to them. There must be a clearly defined number of such people because the number of staff is known, as is the number of those who still are alive. The exact figure is worth getting and I hope there will be no liability. However, the door is open and it is desirable to know the precise extent of any contingent liability.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 24 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 74, before section 25, already has been discussed.

Deputy Sean Fleming: In what group was it discussed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We have discussed it with amendment No. 69.

Deputy Sean Fleming: My grouping list refers to amendments Nos. 69, 71, 72, 75 and 75.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 74 is included there.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Not on the grouping list I have to hand.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: If the Chair will permit, I am happy to deal with amendment No. 74.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The grouping list refers to amendments Nos. 75 and 75, which is a typographical error. However, I wish to comment on the amendment.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 74:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

25.—(1) The Act of 1986 is amended—

(a) in section 12, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

“(1) The articles of association of the Company shall be in such form consistent with this Act as shall be approved of by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.”,

and 542 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(b) in subsection (5) of section 14, by the substitution of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform may determine” for “the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, may determine”.

(2) The amendment of section 12 of the Act of 1986 effected by this section shall not apply in respect of the articles of association of the Company (within the meaning of the Act of 1986) in force immediately before the commencement of this Part.

(3) In this section “Act of 1986” means the National Lottery Act 1986.”.

The amendment in respect of section 12(1) of the National Lottery Act 1986 provides for the substitution of section 12(1). It provides that the articles of association of the company shall be in such form as shall be approved of by the Minister for public expenditure and reform. This does not apply in respect of articles of association currently in force. The amendment in respect of section 14(5) of the National Lottery Act provides that the directors of the company shall hold office for such term and upon such terms and conditions as the Minister for public expenditure and reform may determine when appointing them. This amendment also provides for the new definition of the “Act of 1986” as the National Lottery Act 1986.

Deputy Sean Fleming: While the Minister might suggest the point I am about to make is tangential, it is not.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Off we go again.

Deputy Sean Fleming: This is a great legislative item in that it covers a wide range of areas. As the Minister is taking on many responsibilities, Members have had an opportunity to raise matters that will be fully——

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It is the first gallop, of which there will be many more.

Deputy Sean Fleming: Yes. These matters will be in the Minister’s brief and consequently, my question pertains to the powers the Minister proposes to take on under this amendment. The amendment provides that the Minister will be involved in the appointment of directors to hold office for such term and upon such conditions as the Minister will deem fit, which is fine. I make a point about the lottery that the Minister may take into account. I do not expect him to have an answer to hand today. In general, the lottery makes an annual contribution of a couple of hundred million euro into the central fund of the Exchequer, which then is disbursed. The disbursement of funds will fall under the remit of the Minister’s Department and as this is the source of the fund, I raise this point with him. All Members are aware that in recent years, no lottery application processes for sport and recreation facilities were undertaken. They also are aware that many previous approvals still are working their way through the system and consequently, considerable sums of money are being paid out and work is being carried out. However, through the Estimates documentation published by the outgoing Government, which will be resubmitted to Members for discussion in committees in the next few days, I tabled a series of parliamentary questions on the use of national lottery funding through various Departments. In particular, I inquired in respect of the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Health, Arts, Heri- tage and the Gaeltacht and Transport, Tourism and Sport. There may have been one or two others, as well as the Department of Finance itself. I asked where was the money being spent and the important point from the public expenditure perspective is that the answer I received from all the Departments was that individual projects are not now identified. For example, under the heading of social housing in the Department of the Environment, Community and 543 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Sean Fleming.] Local Government, the reply stated that this subhead was part-funded by national lottery funding. While the subhead may have covered €40 million in expenditure, €2 million of lottery funds may have been spent. However, no one knows or at least I was not provided with such information in replies to parliamentary questions that issued within the last week or two. I was not informed whether such money went to certain social housing schemes for a particular purpose or whether a particular mechanism was in place under which it could be drawn down. My point is that under the Estimates processes, there is a complete lack of transparency on the destination of funding. The list of beneficiaries is available for all to see in the national lottery’s annual reports and information on who receives grants under the sports capital project also is published. While they are specific projects, money that goes into the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government or Health simply gets lost. It appears to be a simple substitute for Exchequer money, which was not the original intention. The Minister should try to disaggregate that expenditure to ascertain whether it is being used for a specific purpose, as was originally intended. After the legislation has been enacted and when the Mini- ster has a few minutes, I urge him to get his staff to try to disaggregate this expenditure from the system.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I share Deputy Fleming’s views, as I am sure does the Minister, on transparency in respect of those funds. What will be the process for the appointment of directors?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: First, I fully share the views expressed by Deputy Fleming regarding transparency. Even if such expenditure is for a particular purpose, it must be in compliance with the National Lottery Act. I must examine this issue and am anxious that there will be full transparency with regard to all public moneys. I would be interested in studying the replies to the parliamentary questions and if the Deputy gets a chance, he should forward them to me. I will examine them because were a Deputy to table a parliamentary question to any line Mini- ster, I would expect him or her to receive a clear view of how the money is being spent if national lottery money is involved. I will look at that. With regard to the appointment of directors generally, the Government plans to bring transparency to all public sector appointments. I am currently formulating proposals which are at an advanced stage. Unfortunately, I cannot share them with the Deputy until 4o’clock such time as they are brought to the Government. The programme for Govern- ment contains a commitment to have a fully open and participative system for appointing directors so members of the public who believe they have a role to play on any particular State board will be able to offer themselves and their credentials can be independently validated before a Minister makes the decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 75:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

26.—The Transport (Re-Organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act 1986 is amended—

(a) in section 10, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance and, where appropriate, the Minister for the Public Service”, 544 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(b) in subsection (1) of section 11, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform” for “Minister for Finance and, where appropriate, the Minister for the Public Service”, and

(c) in section 12, by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance and, where appropriate, the consent of the Minister for the Public Service”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 76:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

27.—The Act of 1988 is amended—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 26, by the substitution of “may, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and after consultation with the Minister,” for “, after consultation with the Minister, may”,

(b) in subsection (2) of section 26, by the insertion of “after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(c) in subsection (1) of section 27, by the insertion of “, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “may”,

(d) in section 28, by—

(i) the deletion, in subsection (1), of “,26or27”, and

(ii) the insertion of the following subsection:

“(1A) All money from time to time required by the Minister for Finance to meet sums which become payable by him under section 26 or 27 shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced by him from the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.”,

(e) in subsection (11) of section 44, by—

(i) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the substitution of “shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance” for “shall be advanced”,

and

(f) in subsection (3) of section 49, by the substitution of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced” for “shall be advanced”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 77:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section: 545 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

28.—Section 69 of the Finance Act 1988 is amended by the insertion of “after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “Minister for Finance may,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 78:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

29.—Section 6 of the Public Hospitals (Amendment) Act 1990 is amended by the insertion of “, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 79:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

30.—Section 14 (inserted by section 41 of the Institutes of Technology Act 2006) of the Dublin Institute of Technology Act 1992 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (9), of “, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “consult with the Minister”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 80:

In page 14, before section 25, to insert the following new section:

31.—Section 13 (inserted by section 15 of the Institutes of Technology Act 2006) of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (9), of “, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “consult with the Minister”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 81:

In page 15, before section 26, to insert the following new section:

26.—Section 41 of the Act of 1993 is amended, in subsection (13), by—

(a) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(b) the insertion of “by the Minister for Finance, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “the growing produce thereof”.

Sections 26 and 27 agreed to. 546 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

NEW SECTION

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 82:

In page 16, before section 28, to insert the following new section:

28.—The Act of 1996 is amended—

(a) in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 19, by—

(i) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the insertion of “by the Minister for Finance, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “thereof”,

(b) in subsection (1) (amended by section 6 of the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2000) of section 25, by the insertion of “on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and” after “Minister for Finance,”,

(c) in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 25, by the insertion of “the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “with”,

(d) in section 26, by—

(i) the deletion, in subsection (1), of “or 25”, and

(ii) the insertion of the following subsection:

“(1A) All money from time to time required by the Minister for Finance to meet sums which become payable by him under section 25 shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced by him from the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.”,

(e) in section 41, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (10):

“(10) All money from time to time required by the Minister or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to meet sums which are, or may become, payable by him or her under this section shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.”,

and

(f) in subsection (3) of section 101, by the substitution of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced” for “shall be advanced”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 28 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 83:

In page 17, before section 29, to insert the following new section: 547 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

29.—Section 33 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “the request of the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform and” after “on”, and

(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of “, after consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 29

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 84:

In page 17, paragraph (b), line 15, to delete “Reform” and substitute “Reform,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Section 30 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 85:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

31.—(1) Section 7B (inserted by section 4 of the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006) of the Act of 1997 is amended—

(a) by the insertion, in subsection (2), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(b) the insertion, in paragraph (b) of subsection (4), of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the Minister”.

(2) Section 10 of the Act of 1997 is amended by—

(a) the insertion, in subsection (2), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”,

(b) the insertion, in subsection (3), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(c) the insertion, in paragraph (b) of subsection (6), of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the Minister”.

(3) Section 11 of the Act of 1997 is amended by—

(a) the insertion, in subsection (2), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, 548 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(b) the insertion, in subsection (3), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(c) the insertion, in paragraph (c) of subsection 8, of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the Minister”.

(4) In this section “Act of 1997” means the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997.

As I have indicated, the Paymaster General will stay with the Minister for Finance. This amendment gives a role to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform regarding the drawing down of money which is held by the Minister for Finance. In this case, it relates to the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I ask the Minister for further information. This amendment establishes a special account to be funded from moneys by the Oireachtas to be used to pay benefits under the relevant insurance scheme to pay the costs of the scheme. I think this is a new account. Why is a new account needed? We have spent this afternoon transferring existing powers but this seems to be something new. I ask the Minister to explain further. How are these people being paid at present? Why has it been decided to set up a new account to take over the payment? Are new cases arising? I ask for this information and if it is not available today I ask him to forward it to us.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It is not a new account in that sense. There is an existing account under the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal (Amendment) Act 2006. The account is new only to the extent that its draw-down process is being amended. I am informed that this special account to be funded from moneys provided by the Oireachtas is to be used to pay benefits under the relevant insurance scheme and to pay the costs of the scheme administrator in administering the scheme. The amendment provides that moneys shall only be issued out of the account on the direction of the Minister for Finance with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, shall determine. It is new only to the extent that it is a new way of drawing down the moneys involving the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in the process. As for the numbers and the beneficiaries, I do not think they have changed.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 86:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

32.—Section 6A (inserted by section 5 of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998) of the Merchant Shipping (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Act 1997 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by—

(i) the insertion of “, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the consent of the Minister”, and

(ii) the substitution of “by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “by the Minister for Finance”,

and 549 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

(b) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 87:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

33.—Section 44 of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 is amended by the substitution, in subsection (5), of “shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance” for “shall be advanced”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 88:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

34.—Section 38 of the Universities Act 1997 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (2), of “, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the Minister”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 89:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

35.—The Act of 1998 is amended—

(a) in section 12, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):

“(3) The cost of such share shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform, be advanced to the Minister by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.”,

and

(b) in section 13, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

“(2) The cost of such shares shall, on the request of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform, be advanced to the subscribers by the Minister for Finance, out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 90:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

36.—Section 29 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1999 is amended by the insertion, in subsection (1), of “after the Minister’s having consulted with the Minister for Public Expen- diture and Reform” after “on the recommendation of the Minister”. 550 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 91:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

37.—Section 37 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “, on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”,

(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of “with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and” after “may,”, and

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 92:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

38.—Section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound Act 2001 is amended, in subsection

(5), by the insertion of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”.

This amendment refers to section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound Act 2001 which establishes the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund. The fund is simply transferring to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the amendment gives a continuing role to the Minister for Finance because it involves excise duty on the taxation side of it and taxation matters will continue to be a matter for the Minister for Finance. Excise duties from off course betting is important. An appropriate role is retained for the Minister for Finance although the fund is transferring formally to my Department.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 93:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

39.—Section 106 of the Local Government Act 2001 is amended—

(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5):

“(5) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, make regulations in relation to borrowing by local authorities.”,

and

(b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (8):

“(8) The appropriate Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, sanction borrowing by a local authority in a currency other than the currency of the State.”. 551 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendments Nos. 94 and 96 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 94:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

40.—Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 is amended, in paragraph (1), by the insertion of “Department of Public Expenditure and Reform;”.

These are standard amendments relating to the insertion of a reference to the new Department. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 95:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

41.—The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act 2003 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1) (inserted by section 6 of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Act 2009) of section 5, by—

(i) the insertion of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”, and

(ii) the insertion of “by the Minister for Finance” after “thereof”,

and

(b) in subsection (5)(a) of section 13, by

(i) the insertion of “, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,” after “shall”, and

(ii) the insertion of “by the Minister for Finance” after “Central Fund”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 96:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

42.—The First Schedule to the Official Languages Act 2003 is amended, in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 1, by the insertion of “Department of Public Expenditure and Reform”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 97:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

43.—Section 36 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 is amended by the insertion of “and on the request of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “ind- emnified”. 552 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 98:

In page 17, before section 31, to insert the following new section:

44.—Section 25 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by—

(i) the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”, and

(ii) the insertion of “by the Minister for Finance with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “thereof”,

and

(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 99 is a negative amendment to section 32 and will delete the existing section.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 99:

In page 18, before section 32, to insert the following new section:

32.—The Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 is amended—

(a) in section 4, by—

(i) the substitution, in subsection (4), of “Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” for “Minister for Finance”,

(ii) the deletion, in paragraph (a) of that subsection, of “13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20(2)(d), 22, 23, 25(1)(d)”, and

(iii) the insertion of the following subsection:

“(4A) The making of regulations under or for the purposes of section 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20(2)(d), 22, 23 or 25(1)(d) by the Minister shall be subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance given after consultation by the Minister for Finance with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.”,

and

(b) in section 9, by the insertion of the following subsection:

553 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

“(12) The Minister for Finance shall, in relation to the performance by him or her of his or her functions under this section, consult from time to time with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.”.

Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of subsection (8) provide that in regard to certain matters making regulations will be subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance following consultation with the Minister for public expenditure and reform. Is the Deputy interested in the matters to which it refers? It is related to subsections (2) and (3) of the parent Act, which is the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. It provides that regulations will be made by the Minister for Finance. The amendment inserts a consultative role for me. The section referred to is the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. It concerns employment contributions; modified insurance; calculation of reckonable earnings; employment by more than one employer; payment of contributions and keeping of records; self-employment contributions and insured persons; regulations providing for determination of contributions payable; and regulations providing for the collection of self-employment contributions. In essence, it includes all the matters related to pay and the social insurance fund.

Amendment agreed to

Section 32 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 100:

In page 18, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new section:

33.—Section 13 of the Health (Repayment Scheme) Act 2006 is amended by—

(a) the insertion, in subsection (2), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”, and

(b) the insertion, in paragraph (b) of subsection (4), of “and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “with the Minister”.”.

This amendment deals section 13 of the Health Repayment Scheme Act. As Deputy Fleming indicated, section 13 establishes a special account to be funded from moneys provided by the Oireachtas to be used to pay prescribed repayments of the costs to the executive in administering the 2006 Act, in so far as it relates to prescribed repayments and the executive’s establishment and management of the fund. The amendment gives a role to the Minister for public expenditure and reform in addition to that of the Minister for Finance under the Act. In regard to the issuing of moneys out of this account and the terms and conditions relating to it. I understand it is an existing account. It is simply taking what is covered under the Health Repayment Scheme Act 2006 and giving a role to the Minister for public expenditure and reform in regard to the distribution of its funding.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Minister might explain why the amendment looks unusual. We spent the day hearing that the Minister could take action after consultation with the Minister for Finance and that he could take action after consultation with the Minister for public expenditure and reform and that powers were being transferred. The amendment states: 554 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

(a) the insertion, in subsection (2), of “given with the approval of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform” after “Minister for Finance”

Both Ministers have to give their approval. Why are two signatures required on a cheque? The matter goes to the HSE and the Department of Finance approves it. Why is the authority not transferred to the Minister for public expenditure and reform?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: To be sure to be sure.

Deputy Sean Fleming: There is a difference. Why is the normal process not taking place?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: In normal circumstances I would deal with it but the account is with the paymaster general, the responsibility for which is staying with the Minister for Finance. We decided in the case of this fund dual authorisation would be required.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 101:

In page 18, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new section:

34.—The Charities Act 2009 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 17:

“17.—The Authority may, from time to time, with the consent of the Minister, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Finance and subject to such conditions (if any) as those Ministers of the Government may specify, borrow money (whether on the security of the assets of the Authority or not).”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 102:

In page 18, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new section:

35.—Section 22 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009 is amended by the substitution, in subsection (10), of “shall, with the approval of the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform, be advanced by the Minister for Finance” for “shall be advanced”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 103:

In page 18, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new section: “PART 5* MISCELLANEOUS

36.—For the purposes only of any principle or rule of law relating to the performance of the functions of a Minister of the Government, any member of staff of the National Treasury Management Agency for the time being assigned to perform functions in the Department of Finance shall, notwithstanding section 7(4) of the National Treasury Man- agement Agency Act 1990, be deemed to be an officer of the Minister for Finance.”. 555 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

This amendment deals with the status of the staff of the NTMA when working with the Depart- ment of Finance. We debated the matter for an hour today. I presume we have exhausted ourselves.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Without exhausting ourselves any further I cannot let it go without reiterating the unacceptability of the amendment and the lack of transparency which the Minister has acknowledged. I urge him and the Minister for Finance to address the matter by whatever means necessary because it is deeply worrying and unacceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 104:

In page 18, before Schedule 1, to insert the following new section:

37.—(1) The Revenue Commissioners shall be independent in the performance of their functions under, or for the purposes of, a relevant enactment.

(2) Neither section 9(3) of the Act of 1924 nor Article 9 of the Revenue Commissioners Order 1923 (S.I. No. 2 of 1923) shall apply to the Revenue Commissioners in the performance by them of their functions under, or for the purposes of, a relevant enactment.

(3) In this section—

“relevant enactment” means—

(a) the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 or any statute amending, or extending the application of, that Act,

(b) the Capital Gains Tax Acts,

(d) the Tax Acts,

(e) Part 18A, 18B, 18C, or 18D of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997,

(f) any statute relating to the duties of excise or the management of those duties,

(g) the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999 or any statute amending, or extending the application of, that Act,

(h) the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 or any statute amending, or extending the application of, that Act,

(i) any instrument made under any of the foregoing statutes, or

(j) any statutory instrument relating to any tax, duty, charge or levy that is placed under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners;

“statutory instrument” has the same meaning as it has in the Interpretation Act 2005.”.

This is the second of the two amendments that we transposed into the Bill today. We had a one hour debate on this today and we indicated in some detail that the amendment provides that Revenue shall be independent in the performance of its functions. It arises from the 556 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Moriarty tribunal and gives what is custom and practice, as Deputy Fleming rightly acknowledged, a statutory basis henceforth.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 2

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 105:

In page 20, to delete lines 7 and 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 106:

In page 20, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“

No. 23 of 1938 Industrial Alcohol Act 1938 Paragraph 4(d) (inserted by section 10(c) of the Industrial Alcohol (Amendment) Act 1980) of Schedule

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 107:

In page 20, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“

No. 21 of 1944 Transport Act 1944 Section 17(3)

”. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 108:

In page 20, line 20, to delete “Section 28” and substitute “Sections 28 and 29(5)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 109 not moved.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 110:

In page 20, line 25, to delete “, 2(1)”.

Amendment agreed to. 557 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 111:

In page 20, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“

No. 12 of 1958 Greyhound Industry Act 1958 Section 17

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 112:

In page 20, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“

No. 26 of 1982 Kilkenny Design Workshops Section 10 Limited Act 1982

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 113:

In page 20, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“

No. 28 of 1986 National Lottery Act 1986 Section 16

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 114:

In page 20, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“

No. 27 of 1987 Transport Act 1987 Section 3

”. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 115:

In page 20, line 42, to delete “Section 30” and substitute “Section 30(2)”.

Amendment agreed to. 558 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 116:

In page 21, line 11, to delete “Section 14” and substitute “Sections 14 and 15(5)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 117:

In page 21, lines 15 and 16, to delete “Sections 34 and 44(3)” and substitute “Sections 34, 43(1), 44(3) and 46(2)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 118:

In page 21, line 20, to delete “Section 13” and substitute “Sections 13 and 22(3)(g)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 119:

In page 21, to delete lines 27 and 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 120:

In page 21, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“

No. 23 of 1999 Electricity Regulation Act 1999 Paragraph 24 of Schedule 1

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 121:

In page 21, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“

No. 1 of 2001 Aviation Regulation Act 2001 Section 25

No. 34 of 2001 Adventure Activities Standards Section 29 Authority Act 2001

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 122:

In page 21, line 36, to delete “Sections 15 and 16” and substitute “Section 15”. 559 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 123:

In page 21, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:

“

No. 15 of 2004 Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 Section 29(2) and (3)

”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 124:

In page 22, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“

No. 8 of 2006 Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Section 64 Jurisdiction Act 2006

”. Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 125:

In page 22, line 7, to delete “Section 27” and substitute “Section 13”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 126:

In page 22, line 10, to delete “26(3)” and substitute “26”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 127:

In page 22, to delete line 20.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 128:

In page 22, between lines 22 and 23, but in Part 1, to insert the following: “ORDERS

S.I. Number Order Provision (1) (2) (3)

S.I. No. 279 of 1986 Health Research Board Article 30 (Establishment) Order 1986

560 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

S.I. Number Order Provision (1) (2) (3)

S.I. No. 109 of 2000 Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Article 30(1) Council (Establishment) Order 2000

”. This amendment inserts Article 30 of the health research board establishment order 1986 and article 30 (1) of the pre-hospital emergency care council (establishment) order 2000 into schedule 2. Both articles deal with borrowing. They are bodies with the power to borrow money and that is why they are attached to Schedule 2 with other such bodies.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Minister may have the information to answer my question. Is there any way he could enlighten us as to what the pre-hospital emergency care council is?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It was established by the previous Government so I thought the Deputy would know.

Deputy Sean Fleming: The Minister has uncovered many organisations in his trawl for this Bill, some of which I had not heard of before. Does anyone know who or what they are? Why do we need that body? Why does the HSE not do the job?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: It was established by the Deputy’s party when in government. It has been a useful exercise because we have had to trawl through the legislation covering every organisation, agency, quango, council and body. We discussed the role to be performed. I am sure that in 2000 there was a compelling case made somewhere to someone for the establishment of the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council. I will have to re-examine the matter and, if the Deputy is interested, I will send him a copy of the statutory instrument in order that he can see what it does.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I will take the Minister’s word for it.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I thank the Deputy.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

SCHEDULE 3

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I understand the Minister does not wish to proceed with amendment No. 129. Is that correct?

Deputy Brendan Howlin: Yes. I should explain that functions were cited in the Bill, but when we went to look for them, we found that they were no longer functions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendment No. 129 not moved.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

TITLE

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I move amendment No. 130: 561 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) 23 June 2011. Bill 2011: Committee Stage

[Deputy Brendan Howlin.]

In page 5, line 17, after “SERVICE;” to insert the following:

“TO DEEM MEMBERS OF STAFF OF THE NATIONAL TREASURY MANAGE- MENT AGENCY ASSIGNED TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TO BE OFFICERS OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE FOR CER- TAIN PURPOSES; TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE INDEPENDENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN OF THEIR FUNCTIONS;”.

This amendment seeks to amend the Long Title of the Bill to take account of the two additional amendments inserted earlier.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Since there are no Report Stage amendments, we will proceed to Fifth Stage in accordance with the order of the Dáil.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): I thank the Deputies opposite. This is convoluted and unusual legislation, the purpose of which is to create a Depart- ment and disaggregate a complicated existing Department. I pay tribute to the staff of my Department, some of whom are present in the Chamber, for their Trojan work in bringing the Bill into being at great pace. I know there was frustration among Opposition Deputies that it was taking three months to have the Bill passed, but it involved an enormous amount of work that I wish to acknowledge. While the Technical Group is not represented in the Chamber, I heard what it had to say about briefings. As a matter of course, I will ensure its Whip is contacted in future. I have asked the Government Whip to ensure this is done as a matter of routine in the case of all Ministers. Therefore, briefings will be provided for all Opposition groupings. I thank Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Sean Fleming who have been here all day for engaging with us on the Bill and coming up with constructive ideas. All we have done today is set the groundwork in terms of how we will operate. I look forward to Question Time, as well as committee debates. I will be bringing other important legislation before the House shortly, the Pensions Bill. I want to use that vehicle to amend the Financial Measures in the Public Interest Bill to deal with the pay measures I announced yesterday to ensure they will have legal validity. We will have plenty of interaction in the future. I thank the staff of the House and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for their help in getting this important legislation through today.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before us after three months in office. There was a lot of work involved in establishing a new Department. It is not the normal transfer of functions that happens between Departments. I acknowledge and appreciate all the work done by departmental staff in trawling through all of the statutory instruments involved. Over 200 statutes have been referred to and amended in one form or another in the course of the afternoon. We had a useful and constructive debate on Second and Committee

562 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

Stages. It is a pity, however, that the Bill was not taken on Report Stage next week. Having had time to digest what happened over four or five hours on Committee Stage, we would have come up with some valuable and constructive amendments had there been an opportunity to do so before Report Stage. However, that will not happen, as we are concluding our work on the Bill now. The Minister has given an assurance that in the future he will try to ensure there will be a proper interval between the various Stages to give us time to reflect on and table amendments. I wish him well in his new Department. We have been trying to put parliamentary questions to him for a long time.

Deputy Brendan Howlin: I am raring to go.

Deputy Sean Fleming: We look forward to being able to speak directly to him in the Chamber on the issues within his ministerial remit. I wish him every success in his new Department.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: The Minister should always acknowledge the work done by his staff and I am delighted to hear him doing so. I acknowledge what must have been an arduous and daunting task for all concerned. We have expressed our reservations and queries concerning the new Department’s processes and mechanisms. It is in all our interests that this legislation works and that the new Department delivers significantly. In addition, the consequences of the Minister’s policies and work should be felt not just in this House but, critically, on the front line also. The success or failure of this innovation will be judged as people seek to access public services. In the course of our deliberations I said the balance between expenditure and cost control, on the one hand, which are absolutely necessary and legitimate, and public sector reform, on the other, had not been struck in the way it might have been. However, I wish the Minister the very best in his new role. I am delighted that the new Department will be on an official footing and that we can, as they say, get the show on the road.

Question put and agreed to.

Ceisteanna — Questions

Priority Questions An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As Deputy O’Brien has arrived, we could start with his question, which is No. 2, if that is agreeable with the Minister.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I thought Question Time was not due to start until 5 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: My understanding was that we would proceed to Question Time if Committee Stage of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act concluded before 5 p.m.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I appreciate we are starting a few minutes early. Somebody might phone Deputy Calleary and we could allow him a few minutes to get here. Everyone anticipated a 5 p.m. start. I do not want to cut him short. Perhaps we could wait a few minutes for him to get here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is fine.

Legal Aid Service 1. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the current delays to access a civil lawyer via the Legal Aid Centre; if he will consult with the Department of Social Protection in relation to utilising the new internship scheme to assist the Legal Aid Board in addressing the delays in civil law cases. [16779/11]

563 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Alan Shatter: I can inform the Deputy that the Legal Aid Board is committed to seeking to ensure that applicants for legal services receive a substantive appointment with a solicitor within a maximum period of four months. This is consistent with the view expressed by the High Court in the O’Donoghue case. Certain types of cases are deemed by their nature to merit the provision of an immediate or near immediate service. Priority cases include those where there are allegations of violence, child custody matters and where statutory deadlines are fast approaching when clients make their first contact with law centres. These comprise some 15% of all applications to law centres. A considerable number of other applications are referred speedily to private practitioners. Thus, up to 40% of all cases receive a very speedy service. In addition, because the Refugee Legal Service operates to strict statutory deadlines every asylum case processed by the board is a priority case by reference to the speed of response from the organisation. The past three years have seen a considerable increase in demand to the Legal Aid Board for legal services and this coincides with the downturn in the economy. In 2007 just over 10,164 persons sought legal services from the board in regard to general civil non-asylum matters. This figure increased to close to 17,175 in 2010. This amounts to an increase of some 69% in that period. In the first five months of 2011 the demand for services increased by 22% on the same period last year indicating that the increase in demand shows no signs of abating. Inevitably, this has created huge pressures for the law centres and their capacity to deliver legal services within a reasonable period of time. As of 1 June 2011 the waiting time in 16 of the board’s29 law centres was greater than four months. In six of those centres the waiting time was greater than six months. As of 1 June 2011 there were 3,806 persons waiting for a first appointment with a solicitor. This compares to 3,153 on 1 January 2011, 2,335 on 1 January 2010 and 1,681 on the 1 January 2009. Additional information not given on the floor of the House. Civil legal aid in Ireland is delivered through the board’s 29 law centres and a small number of specialist units. The service is complemented through the extensive use of private practitioners. Such use has, however, had to be constrained as a consequence of the increased demand and the extent of the board’s financial resources to meet this. The board’s grant-in-aid, which accounts for the vast majority of its funding, other than in regard to asylum, has been as follows since 2008: 2008 — €26,988,000; 2009 — €26,310,000; 2010 — €24,225,000; and 2011 — €24,125,000. Like all public service organisations, the board has also been subject to the public service recruitment embargo and the employee control framework. While the board had a full staff sanction of 384, the current staffing is in the region of 350. The board has sought to maintain its front line staffing to the greatest extent possible. The board has taken a range of measures with a view to addressing the increasing demand for services in a resource constrained environment. These include increasing the number of cases referred to private solicitors for the purpose of providing a service; an advice-only service which facilitates an earlier brief meeting with a solicitor where applicants are likely to have to wait in excess of four months for a substantive appointment; an integration of the delivery of all services with a view to ensuring the most effective deployment of resources; and the recent introduction of a pilot integrated mediation initiative in Dublin involving the board co-locating and co-operating with the Family Mediation Service and the Courts Service. The purpose of the initiative is to offer applicants for legal services alternatives to litigation in the courts as a better, and from the State’s point of view, a more cost-effective means of resolving family law disputes. More of this range of measures include the creation of specialist units for medical negligence and child care services; and the current development of a new legal case manage-

564 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions ment system that is likely to improve the efficiency of service delivery, the management of risk in the organisation and provide for online applications. The board has also made use of a very limited exemption from the moratorium in regard to a small number of temporary front line service delivery positions. The board has been operating a work placement scheme in co-operation with FÁS over the past two years and has also utilised a small number of solicitors who have sought experience on a voluntary basis. Under the work placement scheme the board has engaged up to ten solicitors at any one time. The placements are for a maximum of nine months and consist of a commitment to 30 hours per week. The board is very prepared to utilise all avenues available in addressing the huge surge in demand for services, including the intern scheme referred to. I intend to have a conversation with the chairperson of the Legal Aid Board regarding the utilisation of the new national internship scheme, which is due to commence on 1 July 2011, to temporarily assist in reducing the backlog currently affecting the law centres.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I apologise for the delay. I want, first, to acknowledge the Minister’s record over many years as a practitioner in this area. I know that he has been very involved. I am sure he will agree that to have 3,800 people waiting for this service on 1 June is something that we cannot stand over and we need to put in place some preparations to address this. The internship scheme announced in the context of the jobs initiative would seem to present opportunities for law graduates or practising solicitors or barristers who currently do not have any job opportunities. Some statistics were given in the past fortnight of the number who are applying to register in the UK. Has the Minister or the Legal Aid Board discussed an initiative with the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, whereby people could be available in 16 of the 29 centres where the waiting time is more than four months and in those six centres where the waiting time is far longer than that? Has the Minister consulted the Legal Aid Board as to whether there is a disparity in waiting times across centres? Are there management issues in local offices and practices that some offices use that may be replicated around the network that could assist in the management of the case studies and ensure that people get a chance to access the service? In the area of civil law, particularly when people are facing huge challenges in terms of debts with financial institutions and other organisations, will the Minister consider a specific initiative to make people experienced in this area available to those seeking consultation on this issue?

Deputy Alan Shatter: I thank the Deputy for his questions; they are all important issues. The real problem is that at this time when an increasing number of people are using the civil legal aid system there are decreasing resources. For example, the board’s grant-in-aid, which accounts for the vast majority of its funding, other than in regard to asylum, has been as follows since 2008 — €26,988,000 in 2008, €26,310,000 in 2009; €24,225,000 in 2010 — €2 million less than in the previous year; and €24,125,000 in 2011, based on the funding provided in budget 2010 by the Deputy’s Government. There has been a huge increase in the numbers seeking to use the service and a substantial decrease in the funding available. I am very concerned about this. It is of great importance that people have access to legal advice and legal assistance where they require it. I do not regard it as satisfactory that delays exist which have been detailed and documented in Dáil questions that have been tabled in recent weeks and I will not delay the House by going into the detail of those delays. I have had discussions with Anne Colley, chairman of the Legal Aid Board. I have asked that the Legal Aid Board use the scheme that is available for interns with a view to recruiting from among the more than 1,000 unemployed young solicitors in this country. This scheme

565 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] provides a facility to deal with some of the issues of long delays in people getting access to legal help and advice in circumstances in which the State does not have resources to recruit additional full-time people. This is the only way in which we can provide access to legal advice. Using interns in this way will give them experience and relieve pressures on existing staff within the law centres. That is very helpful and I am looking forward to the Legal Aid Board making application for use of interns when the scheme formally starts to commence on 1 July. I might rapidly reply to the other two questions the Deputy asked me. I understand from conversation with the chairman of the board that they are looking at management and work systems in the individual centres to ensure they operate to the maximum efficiency. The debt crisis issue is another matter that falls within the bailiwick of the law centres. The overall issue is to try to ensure that better management systems and provision of interns at least facilitate a reduction of the backlog and people getting access to the legal help they require.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Regarding the internship scheme, I welcome the commitment of the Minister and his former colleague in the House, Ms Anne Colley. Has the Minister set a deadline by which people must apply to the scheme? Does his office have plans as to when these people will be made available?

Deputy Alan Shatter: The scheme formally starts on 1 July. Applications must be made through the Department of Social Protection. The scheme has substantial possibilities for providing some work experience for young people who are unemployed and have a variety of skills. The Legal Aid Board is one of the areas in which the scheme will be used. In my conversation with the chairperson, she was enthusiastic about using the scheme. I anticipate that applications will be made for interns and I hope those applications will be processed rapidly. The Legal Aid Board and Ms Colley, who has done an excellent job as its chairperson, will have my full support as Minister for Justice and Equality.

Garda Deployment 2. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the progress made on the roll out of the civilianization process within the Garda Síochána; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16882/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: The approximately 2,100 full-time equivalent civilian support staff in the Garda Síochána provide vital support services in a wide range of areas, such as human resources, training and development, IT and telecommunications, finance and procurement, internal audit, research and analysis, accommodation and fleet management, scene-of-crime support and medical services. However, while the current number of civilian support staff is an increase on previous years, more needs to be done. The fact is that the level of civilian support staff in the Garda remains significantly lower than in many comparable police forces. For this reason, the programme for Government commits to ensuring that administrative duties are carried out by civilian staff to free up highly trained gardaí for preventing and detecting crime. It makes no sense to have highly and expensively trained gardaí engaged in administrative work. The Government’s objective is supported by the findings and recommendations of the 2009 Garda Síochána Inspectorate report on resource allocation, which called for the numbers of gardaí available for operational duty to be maximised through a structured programme of civilianisation. It is also worth saying that the Garda Commissioner and Garda management very much recognise the contribution made by civilian support staff, both in releasing gardaí for operational duties and in bringing skills and expertise to the force.

566 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

In seeking to increase the number of civilian support staff, we must face the reality of the need to reduce overall numbers in the public service. The answer may lie in the more effective use of resources across the public service, including in particular more flexibility in redeployment of staff to priority areas. Indeed, the Garda reform agenda under the Croke Park agreement contains a specific commitment, agreed by Garda management and Garda associations, to augment civilian support staff in the force through appropriate redeployment of staff from elsewhere in the public service. I will remain in ongoing consultation with my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, on the implementation of this Government commitment.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I thank the Minister for his response. As he is aware, a highly visible, community-based police service is vital to gain community confidence. With the recent announcement on the recruitment embargo, there is a fear that the number of gardaí on the beat will decrease. The civilianisation programme is all the more essential, but how do we plan to match it up? I presume that the retiring gardaí will be experienced officers, yet one cannot transfer knowledge. Even if we move civilians into senior administrative positions, will the gardaí leaving those positions be retiring or will we be able to use them to increase the number of gardaí on the beat and engaged in front line policing?

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy referred to the recent recruitment embargo. The EU-IMF agreement, as concluded at the end of last year, provided for a reduction in Garda numbers from 14,500 to 13,000 by 2014. Indeed, the numbers are supposed to decrease to 13,500 during the course of this year, but the likelihood of achieving that is low, since the previous Govern- ment did not prescribe any mechanism that would result in a reduction of 1,000 personnel. The reduction depends on the number of gardaí who reach retirement age or who voluntarily retire. When the force is reduced to 13,000 personnel, it will have the equivalent of 2006’s numbers. I am happy they will be able to carry out their duties. The assignment of posts are operational matters for the Garda Commissioner. Like the Government, he is committed to ensuring that we use our well-trained members of An Garda Síochána for policing duties and not for administrative duties unnecessarily. I have the greatest confidence that he will progress the programme of civilianisation to fill posts that do not require the expertise and training of a garda.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: We have touched on the subject of the embargo. Will the Minister give a commitment to the effect that we will not see an impact on front line services, including a reduction in the number of hours that Garda stations are open to the public?

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Government has stated — I will repeat it — that maintaining front line services is a priority. I cannot give commitments about particular Garda stations, as it is important that we retain open minds to ensure that operational duties are focused where they are needed. It is a matter within the remit of the Garda Commissioner as to how best to use the resources available to him to protect the community from crime and to detect crime.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Mattie McGrath is not present, so we will move on to Question No. 4.

Question No. 3 lapsed.

Magdalene Laundries 4. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason he did not opt to establish a full statutory inquiry into allegations of torture and degrading treatment of

567 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

[ Deputy Dara Calleary.] women committed to Magdalene Laundries as recommended by the UN Committee Against Torture. [16787/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: The UN Committee against Torture issued its concluding observations on Monday, 6 June, following Ireland’s first examination in Geneva last month under Article 19 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Its concluding observations cover a wide range of areas that impact on the remit of several Departments. In respect of the Magdalene laundries, the committee recommended that the “State should institute prompt, independent, and thorough investigations into all allegations of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that were allegedly committed in the Magdalen Laundries and, in appropriate cases, prosecute and punish the perpetrators with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed, and ensure that all victims obtain redress and have an enforceable right to compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible”. The committee did not specifically recommend the establishment of a statutory inquiry. Indeed, the recommendation clearly envisages criminal investigations leading to prosecutions where appropriate. Any information or specific complaint that might constitute a criminal offence should be brought to the attention of the Garda for the matter to be fully investigated and to facilitate any prosecution that should ensue. Under our legal system, statutory inquiries have no role to play in the prosecution of offences nor do they have a role in determining enforceable rights to compensation. Members will know that the Government decided on a number of actions following its meeting last week, which considered the circumstances of the women and girls who resided in the Magdalene laundries. The Government believes it is essential to establish the true facts and circumstances relating to the laundries as a first step. Along with my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, equality, mental health and older people, I am following up on this decision with the relevant parties. This will include discussions on the making available of records maintained by the congregations and the provision of information concerning the number of persons currently residing with or in the care of the religious congregations who originally commenced such residence in the laundries and who have remained in the congregations’ care. The putting in place of a restorative and reconciliation process and the structure that might be utilised to facilitate such a process will also form part of these discussions. An inter-departmental committee, chaired by an independent person, will also be set up to establish the full extent of State involvement. It was agreed by the Government that an initial report on progress made by the committee should be made to the Cabinet within three months of its establishment.

Deputy Dara Calleary: In regard to the chairperson of the committee, what type of person does the Minister have in mind? Will the chairperson be someone with a legal or non-legal background? Given that the Minister has given a commitment to revert within three months with a progress report, when can we expect the appointment to be made? The Minister referred to obtaining information from congregations. What other Departments will be involved in the interdepartmental committee? Given that we now know that many State institutions were using these laundries at the time, will the Minister seek records from, say, the former Department of Industry and Commerce and so on in an effort to find out what relationship they had with the management of the laundries and what they knew about conditions therein?

Deputy Alan Shatter: We are giving consideration to the person who should be appointed as chairperson of the group. It will be a person of stature, whose independence will not be

568 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions open to question. I hope to be in a position to announce the name of the person within the next ten days. As regards the group, it will be required to produce a report within three months on what progress has been made. I do not want to assume, however, that its work will be completed within that period. We regard it as absolutely important and crucial that any information or documentation available to the Government that gives an insight into the level of departmental involvement or contact with the Magdalene laundries be brought together and included in a coherent and detailed narrative. All relevant Departments which retain such information will be represented on the interdepartmental committee.

Deputy Dara Calleary: On 7 June Professor Maurice Manning of the Human Rights Com- mission referred on RTE to a wall of official indifference in relation to the work of the commission on this matter. Will the Minister guarantee that both he and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, will instruct that that wall of official indifference be taken down for the duration of the investigation?

Deputy Alan Shatter: I presume the wall of official indifference to which Professor Manning, as president of the Human Rights Commission, was referring was the indifference shown during the term of office of the previous Government which failed to address this issue or put in place the structures the Government of which I am a member is putting in place which it sees as part of a process. Consultations with the religious congregations and representatives of those who lived in the Magdalene laundries will be held shortly. I am committed to ensuring the investigation of the events surrounding the residents of the Magdalene laundries and people who worked therein and the extent to which the State had an engagement of any description. The interdepartmental committee will be required to address these issues and I look forward to the meetings that will take place. Former residents of the laundries are particularly concerned about the establishment of a restorative and reconciliation process. It is hoped the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and I will be able to facilitate the putting in place of such a process by agreement with all concerned.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Will the meetings be held in public or private?

Deputy Alan Shatter: The meetings with the groups will be private to give everyone an opportunity to discuss how we should proceed. We want to ensure records will be made available by the congregations and will be accessible. The interdepartmental committee will meet and a report will be produced, following which further conclusions from the interactions will have to be drawn.

Garda Complaints Procedures 5. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission’s annual report 2010; his proposals on the back of its findings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16731/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission’s annual report for 2010 was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas earlier this month and is available in the Oireachtas Library. The report gives useful details of the commission’s work throughout the year. The number of complaints made, at 2,258, was not markedly different from that for the previous year, nor was the number of referrals from the Garda Commissioner, at 103. Some 27 files were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions during the course of 2010 as compared to 25 in the previous year. At the end of the year there were 1,066 cases in hand, a reduction on the figure for the previous year.

569 Priority 23 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] As of 1 January 2010, the ombudsman commission had five live investigations under section 102(4) of the Act. These are investigations initiated by it in the public interest. During the year two of these investigations were closed, while three were ongoing as of 31 December 2010. Throughout 2010 the commission engaged in extensive dialogue with the Garda Síochána as part of a review of the operation of the law and arrangements in this area. I will study carefully any proposals for change that may emerge. One final point worth mentioning is that during 2010 the ombudsman commission engaged external consultants to conduct a survey of public attitudes towards it. It is pleasing to note that the results indicate that the general public have a good awareness of the role of Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and that it enjoys a reputation of being an impartial body for the independent investigation of allegations of misconduct by members of the Garda Síoch- ána. Such impartial investigation is vital to ensure continued public confidence, respect and support for the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: The report states the majority of the complaints arose from searches of persons and road traffic incidents. Has the Minister had discussions with the Garda Commissioner to try to get to the root of the reason the majority of complaints arise in this way? Can the Garda Síochána do anything to try to reduce the number of such complaints? Do they arise owing to a lack of understanding? Is there any way we can pinpoint the reason the majority of complaints arise in this way and what can be done to rectify the problem?

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Garda Commissioner is reviewing the report. The breakdown of the incidents which gave rise to complaints is interesting. We must ensure people are treated courteously by members of the Garda Síochána. Members of the Garda Síochána are also frequently the victims of spurious complaints which can arise in the context, for 5o’clock example, of road traffic incidents involving people who may have drank excess- ively and did not like being stopped. In that regard somewhat undiplomatic exchanges might have taken place. It is important, however, that gardaí treat members of the general public with courtesy. It is important also that we aim to reduce the level of complaints, if possible. I will be having discussions with the Garda Commissioner on these matters. The report was only recently published and it is reasonable that the Commissioner should be given time to consider it. As I indicated, the content of the report on complaints is not particularly different from that included in previous years. There is a slight reduction in the number of complaints. Also, the profile of complaints is not different. There is no suggestion there has been a substantial increase. The value of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is that it satisfies members of the general public that there is an independent body to which they can complain. It is interesting to note that a significant number of complaints are perceived to be vexatious and not worthy of detailed investigation. Some of these fall within what appears to be largest area that gives rise to complaints.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: The report indicates that six in ten adults who complained believed there had been misconduct within the Garda Síochána, while 80% of those surveyed who had an interaction with the Garda Síochána stated they were satisfied in that regard, which is a contradiction. While people said they were satisfied with their interaction with the Garda Síochána, some 60% of adults believed there had been misconduct within the Garda. This contradiction needs to be addressed. The Minister said it is has just been tabled and that the Commissioner will review it, but it is one of the areas on which we need to focus. Much effort has been put in by the Garda Síochána in recent years in regard to community policing, and the establishment of joint policing committees has helped to break down barriers

570 Other 23 June 2011. Questions between communities and gardaí. However, this figure of six in ten adults indicates much work remains to be done in that area.

Deputy Alan Shatter: That the overwhelming majority of people have great faith and trust in the Garda Síochána and the individual members of the force with whom they come into contact is very well set out in the results of the survey. However, there have of course been individual incidents of misconduct within the Garda, as there are inevitably individual incidents of misconduct within any large group of individuals, unfortunately. Such incidents were well documented in the Morris report which was published on events in Donegal. The general public overall, as the survey indicates, have substantial faith and confidence in the Garda and the vast majority of the general public are very happy with their personal interaction with members of the force. However, even people who have had happy interaction with members of the force and who received great support from members of the force in times of crisis or difficulty with their own families are equally aware that, on occasion, there have been difficulties with individual members of the force. The survey portrays no more than that.

Other Questions

————

Criminal Investigations 6. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding the status of the investigation into Anglo Irish Bank; his views on the recent remarks by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the case and in view of the slow pace of the investigation if he will establish an interagency unit to complete the investigation. [16790/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: One of my top priorities is that allegations of white collar crime are fully investigated and the perpetrators of such crime are made amenable for their crimes. I am informed by the Garda authorities that, following the submission by the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation of two substantial investigation files to the Director of Public Prosecutions last December, a supplementary investigation file was submitted last month. It has been agreed between the DPP, An Garda Síochána and the Director of Corporate Enforcement that additional evidence would continue to be forwarded in such modular form, rather than on completion of the entire investigation, so that consideration by the DPP could begin even as investigation continued, with a view to speeding up the final decision. The files submitted are under consideration by the DPP. The investigation by An Garda Síochána and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, is making progress in respect of these two investigations and also of other complaints received of alleged malpractice at Anglo Irish Bank. There is extremely close co-operation between An Garda Síochána and the ODCE in this investigation. Ten members of An Garda Síochána are currently on secondment to the ODCE. In the circumstances, and given the advanced stage of the investigations, it would be fanciful to suggest, as the Deputy does, that the establishment of some new unit at this late stage would help matters. I have expressed, both before and since my appointment as Minister, my unhappiness with the protracted nature of the investigations. I repeat that this is not a criticism of the persons carrying out the investigations. There is no doubt that the complexities of the matters being investigated create tough challenges for investigators and prosecutors. It was in light of my concerns that, on taking office, I gave priority to the introduction of the Criminal Justice Bill 2011, which is currently before the House. It is my intention that the Bill’s

571 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] provisions will speed up investigations and prosecutions in this area — both future investigations and those currently under way — by improving a number of important procedural matters and strengthening Garda investigative powers. I have to say frankly it is a great pity that legislative action of this kind was not taken at a much earlier stage of the investigation. I note that with reference to this issue, the DPP in his speech stated:

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the decision of the Minister for Justice and Equality to introduce a new Criminal Justice Bill in the Oireachtas. Until now it has been a surprising omission in Irish law that potential witnesses cannot be compelled to cooperate with an investigation, even where they themselves are not suspected of or accused of any wrongdoing. In this regard the power of an Irish criminal investigator is considerably weaker than that of a tribunal of enquiry. The new legislation will plug this gap.

I am aware of the recent remarks made by the DPP, who is, of course, independent in the performance of his duties. As the director said, we have to refrain from any comment which could prejudice any case which might be brought. I note that in the context of the current investigation, the director indicated in the statement I quoted above that the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be of substantial assistance. I thank Members of the Opposition for their co-operation in the manner in which they have dealt with the Bill so far.

Deputy Dara Calleary: The proposal in regard to the establishment of an inter-agency unit to progress the investigation is not mine, it is the Minister’s own, from a speech he gave on a Private Members’ motion in 2009. At that stage, he suggested this would be a way to proceed. The sharing of files and the submission of files to the DPP has been under way for some time. My concern in tabling this question was that, while I understand the DPP is independent, the DPP said that some witnesses have yet to be interviewed. The Minister’s remarks on the paucity of legislation are fair enough. However, in making those remarks, he then praises his publication of the Criminal Justice Bill, which was prepared by the then Minister, Mr. Dermot Ahern, before Deputy Shatter came into office. While we will certainly facilitate its passage, I have certain questions. How much of that Bill will be retrospective? In asking the Minister to apply his legal mind to this, is there a danger that cases we may bring, or charges that may be brought under the provisions of the new Bill, will be ruled out of order by the authorities in the context of the investigation, thus further delaying it? The Minister said on 12 March, two days after coming into office, that he was seeking a report from various authorities in this regard. Has he made any judgment call, from considering that report, as to when we will be in a position to begin prosecutions?

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is interesting that I keep hearing the refrain that this is legislation that the former justice Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern had prepared. To be fair to him, he commenced the process as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but the Bill was by no means complete or in adequate form when I became Minister. Substantial work had to be undertaken both within the Department of Justice and Equality and by the Attorney General’s office to bring the legislation to a point where it could be published and debated in this House. In that context, I have no major interest in who is responsible for the Bill. Ultimately, the important issue is that the Bill be enacted, for the very reason to which the Deputy referred. Although, as Minister, I cannot have direct conversation with the DPP about this, I assume the reason some witnesses have not been interviewed is because they are witnesses, not people suspected of being engaged in offences. Our current law is such that unless people who are

572 Other 23 June 2011. Questions witnesses volunteer to give information to An Garda Síochána, there is no mechanism available to require them to discuss issues. This legislation will do what the DPP says he requires it to do in the very public speech he delivered, from which I quoted an extract. It would provide for the first time a mechanism whereby people can be required to assist the Garda with inquiries in matters of serious white collar crime because they are witnesses who have something of value to provide by way of documentary or oral assistance, or by way of access to material maintained by way of a computer process. It is of crucial importance in this regard. What I said in 2009 was extremely prescient. I was concerned that this area was not being given adequate attention by the Government. We are now two years further on and the investigation has not been able to be completed. We have taken the action necessary to put the required legislation in place.

An Ceann Comhairle: I remind Deputies there is six minutes for each ordinary question — two minutes for the Minister to reply, four minutes for supplementary questions and a maximum of one minute for a further supplementary and a reply. We have run out of time for this question so I must move on to Question No. 7. I will stick to the time limits.

Garda Operations 7. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide a cost for gardai used during the visit of Queen Elizabeth II of England. [16780/11]

17. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide a cost for gardai used during the visit of President Obama. [16781/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: I propose to take Question Nos. 7 and 17 together. The visits of Queen Elizabeth and President Obama required unprecedented security arrangements to be put in place by An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces to ensure the safety of our visitors and the maintenance of public order. All Garda leave and rest days were cancelled for this period, and members on duty were required to work longer than normal shifts. Movement of several thousand Garda members over several days had to be arranged, involving hiring transport and the provision of accommodation. Catering had to be provided at the various venues. A range of security-related equipment also had to be purchased or hired. The Garda Commissioner, who is the Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote, is currently finalising processing of payments of the costs incurred. This has taken time, as, for example, individual claims for overtime must be verified before being approved for payment. While I cannot give a final figure, I would estimate, on the basis of the information available, that the total Garda cost arising from the visits will exceed €20 million.

Deputy Dara Calleary: We all congratulate An Garda Síochána for the manner in which the gardaí policed both operations. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulties. We are now five weeks down the road and the gardaí have been paid their overtime allowances with their regular salaries. I just wish to get the final costs and draw a line under the matter so that in future a plan is put in place for large security operations, for budgetary reasons, so we can have a figure available quicker than six weeks after the event. The cost is high and we would rather it was not necessary, but it was and the gardaí played an exemplary role, but it takes far too long to get the final figures for costs for operations of this nature.

573 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Alan Shatter: I thank Deputy Calleary for his comments; we have made similar comments in the past so it is appropriate to again acknowledge the extraordinary job the gardaí did in circumstances of some difficulty, where a small minority who were intent on trouble had to be dealt with and that was done in a most efficient and appropriate manner, ensuring neither visit was disrupted or spoiled in the manner some intended. Some of the final accounting issues will be resolved by the end of the month and we will have the full figures early in July. It is important that the Garda Commissioner, who is the Accounting Officer, has the time to collate all of the relevant information. It is regrettable that this amount had to be spent. The visits were successful and of great importance internationally. They have done the country a great deal of good; events relating to the Queen were projected around the world and secured huge media coverage in many places. I would prefer if the money had been available for other purposes and that the small group of people who sought to cause disruption and difficulty had not done so. If they had not done so, the funds would have been available for other purposes.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Given the amount involved, will it require an additional Estimate? The Minister said previously an amount had been budgeted for the visits but was this much envisaged? Is the €20 million specifically related to Garda activity?

Deputy Alan Shatter: That figure relates to Garda overtime and acquiring additional material necessary to facilitate the visit. The gardaí must have available to them the funding in the original Estimate in December to maintain operability and do the important work they do in a broad range of areas, including crime prevention and detection. This funding will be provided for in a manner that does not inhibit the capacity of An Garda Síochána to carry out fully its duties up to the end of the year.

Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission 8. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons who have died whilst in garda custody during 2010 and to date in 2011. [16785/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: A death in Garda custody is defined as a death which takes place in the period after a person comes into the custody and control of a member of the Garda Síoch- ána and before they leave Garda custody and control. It includes, for example, not only a death at the time of arrest, or in a Garda station, but the death of a person in hospital for treatment while still in Garda custody. It is important to note that such deaths are the subject of an inquest. In addition, under section 102(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the Garda Commissioner is required to refer to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission any matter that appears to indicate that the conduct of a member of the Garda Síochána may have resulted in the death of or serious harm to a person, and the Ombudsman Commission must immediately conduct its own independent investigation into the matter. There were three deaths in Garda custody in 2010 and these occurred in Tallaght, Templemore and Dundalk Garda stations respectively. There have been three deaths in Garda Custody to date in 2011, and these occurred in Ballyconnell, Tuam, and Store Street Garda Stations. All six of these deaths are currently being investigated by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I regret any deaths but, given that three of the deaths occurred in 2010, why has there been a delay in getting the report from the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission?

574 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Alan Shatter: The commission conducts its inquiries independently and I do not interfere with it. It is important that the commission takes the time it requires to investigate the deaths. I do not want to say anything about the particular events; those of us who are aware of the deaths that have occurred know something of the background and I assume the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission will publish the outcome of its investigations at the earliest available opportunity.

Garda Deployment 9. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which the necessary personnel, general resources, communications, mobile equipment, intelligence and forensic facilities are available to the Garda Síochána to tackle the ongoing activities of criminal gangs; the extent to which the activity of such gangs can be monitored at present with a view to taking steps to decommission them; if he has considered any further initiatives that he may take to deal with this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16745/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: Tackling serious and organised crime, and bringing those involved to justice, is a key priority for the Government. Implementation of specific operational measures to deal with criminal gangs and their criminal activities is a matter for the Garda Commissioner. In this context, the Commissioner has stressed, on many occasions, that the necessary resources have been made available and will continue to be made available. All the members of this House will be under no illusions when it comes to the threat that organised crime poses to our society. The criminals involved have shown themselves to be completely ruthless and they have used serious violence and other tactics to protect their interests. Accordingly, the Garda Commissioner has put special measures in place to combat criminal gangs. These measures include the deployment of significant resources with a number of operational approaches to tackling serious organised crime, including a multi-agency approach and the use of intelligence-targeted operations. The lead role is being undertaken by the Garda organised crime unit which targets organised criminal gangs. The unit works in conjunction with other Garda national units such as the emergency response unit, the bureau of fraud investigation and the Criminal Assets Bureau. All of these units cooperate very closely and they have had many successes in combating organised gangs and depriving them of their financial resources. It is also the case that there is a substantial international dimension to serious organised crime. This is an area where the Garda is also very active and it has built up extensive communications networks with police forces in other countries which enables it to exchange intelligence and to cooperate at operational level. In the circumstances the Deputy will appreciate the extent of the measures that have been put in place to combat criminal gangs. As the Commissioner has indicated the pressure on these gangs will be maintained and they will continue to be a major focus of Garda operations.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: The Minister says he is giving adequate resources but the resources are not evenly distributed. Last weekend there was a major drugs haul in Celbridge, with another the week before in Kill and there have been two tiger raids this year in Kildare. The gardaí in Kildare tell us they have the lowest resource level per head of population in the State. They say huge resources are needed to deal with these criminals in a reactive way after they have been caught and they have only caught a small number of them. Is the Minister satisfied the distribution of Garda manpower by the Garda Commissioner adequately deals with organised crime? It does not function in one part of the country.

575 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Alan Shatter: In recent weeks the Garda has had substantial success in recovering drugs and arresting individuals engaged in drug related activities. It is a matter for the Garda Commissioner to determine issues of operation and how to best focus An Garda Síochána to tackle organised crime. I have had discussions with the Garda Commissioner on these areas and I have the utmost confidence in his judgment and capacity to determine how to best focus the Garda to tackle those engaged in organised crime. It remains a continuing concern to everyone that we have drugs gangs engaged in what could best be described as open urban warfare. In some parts of Dublin they fight over patches they wish to dominate for their illegal activities. This is a matter of concern to the Garda Commissioner. There are too many young men engaged in drug activities who have no respect for human life or human rights and show no concern for the communities on which they prey. The Garda take this issue with great seriousness and have engaged on occasions in very serious policing and detective work in very difficult circumstances. I have the greatest confidence in its ability.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I acknowledge the points made by the Minister and the success in recent years of Garda activities against organised criminals. Crime of this kind has been going on for a long time and it would appear that in the past ten years there has been an inexorable development in the power, strength and influence of criminal gangs. Does the Mini- ster believe that sufficient modern and adequate resources are available to gardaí so that they can interrupt and intercept the activities of the people who are now so devoted to criminal activity, from which they make such considerable profit, as is recognised nationally and internationally? Have the authorities been frustrated by the power and influence of the criminal gangs in such a way as to make it easier for them to operate and more difficult for the authorities to combat their activity?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister has 20 seconds to respond.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I have the greatest confidence in the Garda. It has available the resources it requires. I am taking an initiative at a European level with my European colleagues to try to put in place arrangements whereby we can ensure that ultimately there are equivalents of our Criminal Assets Bureau in every EU country, and a framework in place whereby those engaged in serious crime in this State who invest the proceeds of crime in other parts of Europe will know that whatever property or proceeds of crime they retain in other countries in Europe can ultimately be attacked and obtained by the Criminal Assets Bureau. This is a very important initiative at European level. It will take some time to develop this to fruition but it is an important additional weapon that should be in the armoury for tackling organised crime, which does not recognise boundaries and has an international dimension.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I imagine the Ceann Comhairle will tell me if I am out of time on the next question.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Have we an extra hour?

International Time Zones 10. Deputy Noel Harrington asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he had any discussions with either his British counterpart or his European colleagues regarding the possibility of changing our time zone to European Time; his views on the benefits or disadvantages to Ireland if such a change was made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16623/11]

16. Deputy Noel Harrington asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to conduct a cross Departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour

576 Other 23 June 2011. Questions all year round for Ireland; if his attention has been drawn to the passage of a Bill in the House of Commons undertaking a similar study; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16624/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 16 together. I am aware of the Bill to which the Deputy refers. The Daylight Saving Bill 2010/11 passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 3 December, 2010. I understand that, if it became law, this Private Members’ Bill would require the British Government to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all, or part of, the year. I further understand that such analysis would include a breakdown, so far as possible, of the costs and benefits for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In light of this, I would expect that each of the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would ensure that their views and concerns would be fully reflected in any analysis that might be conducted. Were this cost benefit analysis to be conducted, the Bill requires that an independent commission would be established to assess it. If that commission were to conclude that the advancing of time by one hour for all, or part of, the year would be beneficial to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland then an order bringing the commission’s recommendations into effect for a three-year trial period would need to be made. Given that European Union Directive 2000/84/EC results in all EU member states starting and ending summer time simul- taneously in order that time differences between member states remain constant throughout the year, this would impose a limitation on the discretion available in this area. At present Ireland and the United Kingdom operate in the same time zone. Each year summer time begins at 1:00 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, GMT, on the last Sunday in March when clocks are put forward one hour, and ends at 1:00 a.m. GMT on the last Sunday in October when clocks are put back one hour. During summer time our clocks are set — I laugh because I expect the Ceann Comhairle to tell me I am out of time at any minute.

An Ceann Comhairle: Two questions are being taken together.

Deputy Alan Shatter: During summer time our clocks are set at GMT plus one hour and at GMT during winter time. Were clocks to be put forward for an hour for all of the year, clocks would be set at GMT — this is becoming far too technical. I will simply conclude——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister is all right because we still have a minute and because he is taking two questions together he has——

Deputy Alan Shatter: I am finding it difficult to keep a straight face for this length of time on this question, considering the details I have been given. This is not an issue on which we will make an untimely response and it is important that it be given further consideration but at this time I have no plans to change the time zone arrangements or to conduct the type of cross-departmental, cost-benefit analysis for advancing the time by one hour all year round in Ireland, such as is proposed in the UK.

Deputy Noel Harrington: I realise the country is dealing with many more difficult and challenging prospects but this one seemed timely, for two reasons. We just passed the summer solstice and Irish people love to talk about time and weather. It is not an exact science.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: What about Newgrange?

577 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Noel Harrington: A person said to me recently that 21 June would be the longest day and, in the same breath, that Thursday would have the shortest night. The subject engages people. It can also be a serious issue in rural Ireland because it affects farming and other areas. The Minister, rightly, stated the reasons it was appropriate to table the question were because of the study, and because the Bill in question has passed Second Stage in the House of Com- mons where it is being taken seriously. To keep the analogy going, we cannot afford to be out of time with our UK counterparts — we would be at a serious disadvantage. I do not expect this will be the case but expect that we would, as a nation, have some background work done. We should follow the legislative process in the UK in order not to be out of step. Many studies have been carried out in the UK, by the Mayor of London and his office, the London Development Agency, transport agencies, the Policy Studies Institute of London, engineering and manufacturing departments at the University of Cambridge, the IPA——

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Noel Harrington: Numerous advantages have been highlighted. I need not elaborate them because they are on the record and the Minister is following the matter very carefully. One aspect to consider is work practices in an increasingly global economy. Lunch hours are different in this country than in Europe, as are opening and closing hours for work. One can lose time and effort so, although this may not be as serious as other issues, I urge the Minister to consider it. We must give it more time and keep in time with our European counterparts.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I very much appreciate that this is a serious issue in the context of certain areas of business and of doing business with Europe and the United Kingdom. In advance of the second reading of the Bill, Mr. Edward Davey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, sought a meeting with our ambassador in London to discuss issues concerning daylight hours. The meeting took place in November 2010. In February 2011 officials from my Department and our London embassy met the Bill’s sponsor, Ms Rebecca Harris, MP, in order to find out more about the background to her Bill as well as to register our interest in its passage and the potential implications for this country. Although there has been contact with the British authorities, no discussions have been held with our European colleagues on this matter as the matter is not at a sufficiently advanced stage. In the context of our doing business with the United Kingdom and the relationship we have with that country, it is important to be on similar time zones. It would be a particularly unfortunate situation were we to find ourselves in a position where Northern Ireland was on one time zone and we were on a different one. This island is too small for that type of development. All I can say to the Deputy is that this is not an immediate priority — I do not want to pretend otherwise — in the context of the various major issues the Government must address. We will keep a watchful eye on developments in the United Kingdom. We are very conscious of the implications for the State of what is being suggested there. We will try to ensure we are not lost in a timewarp at the end of the process.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I can inform the Minister that an extra hour of daylight in the evening in winter would be of huge benefit to productivity in the construction industry. It is a real problem for us when it gets dark at 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m. rather than 6 p.m. It has a huge impact on the construction industry. Given that it can take an hour and a half to set up for the day, it can be a real bummer when one has to stop working early. We are often told that one of the main reasons for putting the clocks back in October is to ensure kids do not have to go to

578 Other 23 June 2011. Questions school when it is still dark on winter mornings. Irish children tend to start school between 9 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. each day, which is later than in continental Europe. We should bear in mind that primary and secondary schools in Italy open at 8 a.m. each day. Children there deal with the darkness in winter without getting run over on their way to school.

Deputy David Stanton: I have been interested in this issue for some time. Is the Minister aware that the United States has extended summer time by a number of weeks into both the spring and autumn? Does he have any plans to raise this matter at EU level?

Deputy Noel Harrington: The Minister has said there are no plans to conduct a cross-departmental analysis. Is there any chance he might seek submissions from the public and relevant organisations to get the views of the nation on this matter?

Deputy Alan Shatter: I will give some thought to Deputy Harrington’s interesting suggestion. It would be interesting to get the views of the general public on this issue. We might consider establishing a process within which that could be done. I assure Deputy Stanton that I am aware of the change effected in the United States. I understand people are very happy with it. I put it to Deputy Wallace, in the light of his remarks about the construction industry, that the State might have been better off in recent years if there had been more darkness. If we had reflected what happens in one or two other parts of the world, where there is very little light during the winter months, we might have contained the hyperactive nature of the construction industry and the disaster brought to this country.

Prison Accommodation 11. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the report by the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly; his proposals on the back of its recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16733/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: I assume the Deputy is referring to the 2010 annual report of the Inspector of Prisons which I published on 30 May 2011. In his report the inspector states the Irish Prison Service and local management should be aware of what he regards as best practice and that he expects all prisons will comply with this by 1 July. He also states he appreciates that prisons in certain areas will not be able to comply with this in the short term. I welcome the inspector’s report and believe the work he does is valuable. The report mentions, inter alia, the use of special cells, prisoners’ complaints and the procedure to be followed following the deaths of people in custody. New procedures have been drawn up in respect of these issues. They will be supported by changes to the prison rules which I regard as being of particular benefit and importance. The appropriate amendments to the prison rules have been prepared in the Department of Justice and Equality and are being finalised in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General. The inspector’s report also refers to minimum standards for prison accommodation and the regimes and services that should be provided. The Government is committed to the elimination of slopping out in prisons. The upgrading of more than 100 cells at Mountjoy Prison will be completed by the end of the summer. When taken with the completion of the construction projects mentioned previously, that will mean 80% of the prisons estate will have in-cell sanitation by mid-2012. Feasibility studies are taking place with regard to the further implementation of the programme of refurbishment. The number of people in prison does not allow all of the inspector’s standards to be met in the short term. The problem of prison overcrowding remains a challenging issue. On 22 June there were 4,433 prisoners in custody. The figure was 2,919 in 2000. Some 400 additional prisoner places

579 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] will come on stream by mid-2012. The committee examining the Thornton Hall project is due to report by 1 July 2011 and I believe it will meet that timeframe.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House I am pursuing alternatives to custody. The Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will require judges to consider imposing community service in any case where the appropriate sentence would otherwise be a custodial one of up to 12 months imprisonment. I have asked my officials to look at a scheme where suitable long-term prisoners might have the last period of their custodial sentence replaced by a form of community service.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: It is welcome that the review of the Thornton Hall project will be completed by 1 July. The Minister mentioned some of the recommendations made in the report. Obviously, they cannot be implemented because of the overcrowded conditions. I appreciate that legislation has been introduced to provide for community service orders and similar measures that would reduce the number of prisoners in the system. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that we have a safe environment in our prisons? In particular, we need to provide drug-free support units in all prisons. We must do everything we can to ensure prisoners have the resources they need to kick any drug habits they may have.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I agree with the Deputy. It is important that we provide a safe environment. I would like drug-free spaces to be allocated in every prison. I would like prisoners who are addicted to drugs to have every opportunity to come off them, rather than merely substituting methadone for them. A substantial portion of the prison population are on methadone. I am examining what reforms I can introduce in the prison system within the limited resources available to me. I look forward to the completion of the Thornton Hall project review and the recommendations that will be made. The terms of reference given to the group working on the review go beyond simply commenting on whether a prison should be built at that location. The report will inform how we proceed within the financial resources available. If it is published on time, as it should be, I expect and hope the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will have an opportunity to consider and debate it before the House begins its summer recess.

Proposed Legislation 12. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans regarding reform of the bankruptcy laws here; when these will be implemented; the number of persons who are bankrupt that it will affect; and the way it will impact on creditors. [14725/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: In line with a commitment in the programme for Government, a personal insolvency Bill is being developed in the Department of Justice and Equality. The Bill will provide for a new framework for the settlement and enforcement of debt and personal insolvency. The commitment made in the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland is that the Bill will be published in the first quarter of 2012. It is my objective to publish the measure ahead of the EU-IMF deadline, if possible. There is a reasonable possibility we will achieve this. In developing the Bill, account is being taken of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations in its recent report on personal debt management and debt enforcement. That report provided an in-depth review of the personal debt regime. The economic and financial effects of some of the new arrangements being contemplated are being carefully assessed to ensure all relevant issues are addressed and their impact is fully anticipated and understood.

580 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

I am glad to inform the Deputy that earlier this week the Government approved my proposals for interim reforms to the law on bankruptcy. The details will be announced when the civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill 2011 is published. The Bill will provide for a significant reduction in the application period to the court for discharge from bankruptcy and will permit the automatic discharge of bankruptcies on the 12th anniversary of the adjudication order. According to the results of my inquiries, the new accelerated period of automatic discharge will affect approximately 365 existing bankruptcies. The impact of the personal insolvency Bill on debtors and creditors will depend on the form the Bill will take. It is clear that a good number of people could be affected. The key will be to achieve a balance, in so far as is possible, between the interests of creditors and debtors. The objective will be to create a system that avoids as much as possible the need for expensive bankruptcy procedures and court involvement.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I welcome the positive notes in the Minister’s reply. When is it expected that the civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill 2011 will be published? When will it be brought before the House? The Minister has said it will contain some interim measures which may help. Will it be published before the summer recess?

Deputy Alan Shatter: I hope the Bill will be published within the next 24 hours. It will address not just bankruptcy issues but other issues also. There is some realistic possibility that it will be enacted before the summer recess. As I am taking Dáil questions, that issue is being finalised. There is a possibility it will go to the Seanad before it comes to this House. I hope, with the help and co-operation of Opposition Deputies after they have had an opportunity to consider the content of the Bill, to bring about a position where we might enact it into law before we go on vacation for the summer.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this Bill so quickly. In the current climate, it is essential. The Minister can be assured of my party’s full support, whatever House it comes through, in terms of trying to get this through before the summer recess.

Court Procedures 13. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the sections of the Fines Act 2010 which remain to be implemented; the progress in relation to implementation of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16792/11]

29. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide an update on the progress made to update the court IT system to facilitate the payments of fines in instalments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16726/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 29 together. All of the Fines Act 2010 has been implemented except for two sections. Section 15 will, when introduced, provide an option for the payment of fines in excess of €100 by instalment. It will allow a person on whom such a fine has been imposed to make an application to the court to discharge the payment in this way. If the court is satisfied that a single sum payment by the due date would cause financial hardship, it can direct that the fine be paid over a period of 12 months or, in exceptional circumstances, over a two-year period. Section 16 when commenced, will require a judge, consequent on determining that a fine is to be imposed, to make an order appointing “an approved person” to recover the fine in the event of it not being paid.

581 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

For these provisions to operate effectively it will be essential to accurately track which instalment payments have been made or which are in default. This requires significant enhancement to the courts’ ICT systems as well as the appointment of approved persons as receivers. I intend to commence the provisions when this work can be completed. The Courts Service has completed a scoping project to identify the detail and cost of the necessary work and I expect to discuss the timescale for implementation with the chief executive in the near future. It should be stressed that section 14 of the 2010 Act, which was commenced from 4 January last, places an obligation, for the first time, on the court to take account of the defendant’s financial circumstances before a fine is imposed — this is something of which the courts were not required to take account in the past. With the commencement of this provision, no person can be sent to prison for default solely for the reason that he or she cannot afford to pay a fine.

Deputy David Stanton: I thank the Minister for that response. Can he give a more definitive timescale regarding the tender system in place? When does he expect to see the IT upgraded? Can he tell us how many people were imprisoned in 2010 for not paying fines and how many have been in prison to date in 2010? Can the Minister tell us the total value of fines for the past 12 months, how much of this was collected and how much is outstanding? I understand the Minister may not have those figures here but if he would give them to me at a later stage, I would appreciate it.

Deputy Alan Shatter: An unfortunate difficulty with this legislation, which, in fairness, was enacted by the previous Government and had support from the Opposition side of the House at the time, is that no arrangements were put in place in advance of the legislation’s enactment to ensure that the software that the courts system required to operate the provisions on the payment of fines by instalments would be readily available, and we have had to start that work. I was surprised to discover that was the position. It is in the public interest that we have this instalment system. It is in the interests of ensuring the integrity of court orders is maintained. I do not want to give an unrealistic timeframe because there are cost issues in putting in place the software system. I expect within a relatively short period, because I have had a number of conversations with officials within my Department on this issue, to have a clear view of the timeframe. I am disappointed it has not proved possible to start on the instalment issue much earlier. I have the other information Deputy Staunton sought available and will provide it to him in writing so that I do not get into time trouble again.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I will be brief.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are coming to a close and I want to get to the question of Deputy Boyd Barrett, who has been sitting there.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I will not be 30 seconds. As the Minister will be aware, I am new to this House and I do not know exactly the way this matter works. I would imagine that some sort of cost analysis would be done on any legislation which comes before the House. It is surprising that the Government enacted legislation which it knew would involve a cost——

An Ceann Comhairle: A question, please.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: ——which was not included. Will the Minister ensure that a cost analysis is done with all legislation coming from the Department?

582 Other 23 June 2011. Questions

Deputy Alan Shatter: In the context of current Government procedures, we are supposed to do a cost analysis. My Department did not have available the information, when I last asked, as to what the costing of this will be. A scoping exercise has been done since I have been appointed as Minister and I expect within a short time to have the detail of the outcome of that from my officials as to its likely cost. It will give me an opportunity to assess whether the funding is available to me within the Department in this year’s Estimates to meet that expenditure and if it is not, I will tell the House. If it is, I hope we can advance this with some speed because it is in the public interest that we do so.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is only a minute and a half left.

Citizenship Applications 14. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the application for naturalisation in respect of a person (details supplied) was not granted in view of the fact that both their spouse and children have been granted a certificate of naturalisation and are residing here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16777/11]

Deputy Alan Shatter: All applications for a certificate of naturalisation are processed and assessed individually under the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. Section 15 of the Act provides that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. In particular, these conditions require that an applicant is of good character, has had a period of one year’s continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of application and, during the eight years immediately preceding that period, has had a total residence in the State amounting to four years, intends in good faith to continue to reside in the State after naturalisation; and has made a declaration in the prescribed manner of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. I should also point out for the information of the Deputy that, in the context of naturalisation, certain periods of residence in the State are excluded. These include periods of residence in respect of which an applicant does not have permission to remain in the State, periods granted for the purposes of study and periods granted for the purposes of seeking recognition as a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Act 1996. In respect of the person referred to by the Deputy, my position is as follows. An application for a certificate of naturalisation was received in the citizenship division of my Department in March 2005. My predecessor decided in his absolute discretion not to grant the application and a letter informing the applicant of that decision was issued in February 2007. A new application from the person concerned was lodged in May 2007 and after evaluating the entirety of the information available to me, I decided not to grant the application. The person in question was informed of this decision in a letter issued to him on 23 May 2011. As referred to by the Deputy in his question, certificates of naturalisation were granted to the spouse and children of the person concerned. A certificate of naturalisation issued to his spouse in April 2007, who then lodged applications for naturalisation on behalf of her children under section 16 of the 1956 Act, which provides for applications from naturalised Irish citizens on behalf of their minor children. These applications were granted and certificates of naturalisation issued in February 2009. On the processing of the naturalisation applications in respect of each of these persons and the decisions made, I make it clear that all applications are considered individually and each application is assessed with reference to the statutory criteria laid down. It is only when these

583 School 23 June 2011. Staffing

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] conditions are met that I, as Minister, in my absolute discretion, can grant an application. I do not propose to go into any further details on the specifics of this case. I can additionally inform the Deputy that I am reforming the way in which my Department processes naturalisation applications to provide for speedier processing of applications bringing about a substantial reduction in the processing timescale.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House. The new arrangements include improved application forms that will be operational from tomorrow Friday, 24 June 2011. The forms are currently available online. In addition there is, an online residence checker, streamlined and accelerated procedures for certain types of application and plans to recruit interns under the new internship programme in order to ensure more efficient processing of applications. The aim of these measures is to eliminate the current backlog of cases and, save in exceptional circumstances, that persons applying for citizenship will be given a decision on their application within six months. I am also introducing a formal citizenship ceremony to address the existing deficit in current arrangements which give no sense of occasion or proper recognition to the importance of a person being granted Irish citizenship. I can tell the House that the first ceremony will take place tomorrow in Dublin Castle where Bryan McMahon, retired judge of the High Court, has agreed to assume the role of presiding officer.

Written Answers follow Adjournment debate.

Adjournment Debate Matters An Ceann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh — the need for a full-time resource teacher to be appointed to St. Catherine’s National School, Donore Avenue, Dublin 8; (2) Deputy Joe Costello — the development of the national monument at 14-17 Moore Street, Dublin; (3) Deputy Simon Harris — the need to prioritise the establishment of the EU hotline for missing children; (4) Deputy Jack Wall — the need to provide proper facilities for Ghael-Choláiste Chill Dara, Kildare, prior to the commencement of the 2011/2012 school year; (5) Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett — the threatened closure of the Befriending the Elderly community employment scheme in Shankill, County Dublin; (6) Deputy Robert Dowds — the extension of the catch- ment area of the drug treatment court programme. The matters raised by Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Jack Wall, Joe Costello and Simon Harris have been selected for discussion.

Adjournment Debate

School Staffing Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The issue in front of us relates to a special needs position in St. Catherine’s school in the Tenters in the south inner city. St. Catherine’s is a Church of Ireland school with 130 pupils with five mainstream classes. It has had a special class for mild general learning disabilities since the 1960s and it is the only Church of Ireland school with such a class up until now. The school has also had part-time resource teaching sanctioned to it for the next academic year of 21.6 hours. The problem is that the number of pupils in the special class has

584 School 23 June 2011. Staffing fallen to four. This has been acknowledged and there is no argument about it. Aside from losing one permanent teaching post, those involved are seeking to ensure the resource teacher will be retained on the full number of hours. However, only a given number has been sanctioned. The Department changed the criteria mid-stream by reducing the number from the 24 hours allocated which the school had assumed would be sufficient to provide for a full-time resource teaching job. Now it appears the teacher will lose her job because the number of hours has been reduced by 10% to 21.6 hours, although the number of hours required has increased. This development will be severely detrimental to the children who have been dependent on the provision of learning support. The school has assessed other children and a further assessment is taking place to establish whether additional hours can be sanctioned. The school has lodged an appeal with the Department to seek additional resource teaching hours for another child. Given the school involved, the area in question, one of the most deprived in the city, and the severe disabilities of some of the children who have been dependent on the resource, the hours of the teacher concerned should not be reduced. The solution suggested by the Department is that the teaching job should be shared among a number of schools with spare capacity, in other words, that there should be a teacher who runs around from school to school. However, given the hours of the teacher in the question, the only logical thing for the Department to do is to make an exception, if required. Let us bear in mind that the assessment is still ongoing. I raise the matter today because the school is due to close next Wednesday and seeks clarity on the teaching hours and posts to be allocated to it in the next school year. It has argued that the teacher involved could lose her job, as she has no panel rights. However, under the Croke Park agreement, she cannot be made redundant. There could be a cost to the Department regardless in paying such a teacher without an allocation. The teacher in question should be retained on full hours, especially given the school in question and the children involved. The school has been granted five hours teaching time for one child with autism who is due to enter the school in September. The additional five hours should be included which would bring the school to within the figure of 25 hours required. I urge the Minister to accept my appeal and that of the principal and the many parents who contacted my office. The teaching post in question should be confirmed quickly to ensure the school can plan for the new term beginning in September.

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): I thank the Deputy for providing me with the opportunity to outline the position on the allocation of resource teaching support in schools generally and in respect of the particular school referred to by him. As he will be aware, the Department of Education and Skills provides for a significant level of additional teaching support in schools for pupils with special educational needs. Additional teaching support is provided in primary schools through the general allocation model of teaching support, as well as through the allocation of additional resource teaching hours for children with more complex, low incidence special needs. The total number of whole-time equivalent posts provided this year for resource teaching and learning support posts, including under the general allocation model, is approximately 9,950, representing an increase of 350 on the figure for 2010. The Deputy may be aware that the National Council for Special Education, through its network of local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, is responsible for processing applications for special educational needs supports. This includes the allocation of resource teaching hours to schools, as well as the establishment of special classes and the discontinuation of such classes where there is no longer a need. I understand that, with regard to the school referred to by the Deputy, the class for pupils with mild general learning disability will not be

585 School 23 June 2011. Accommodation

[Deputy John Perry.] sanctioned by the National Council for Special Education for the coming school year because the school does not have the minimum number of nine pupils required to retain such a class. I understand there are only four pupils in this class. The children with mild general learning disability enrolled in the class will be able to receive additional teaching support through the teaching resources allocated to the school under the general allocation model. I understand St. Catherine’s national school has an allocation of one full-time teaching post under the general allocation model. If pupils with more complex low incidence special educational needs were enrolled in the special class, the school could apply to the National Council for Special Education for individual resource teaching support for the pupils concerned. With regard to the allocation of individual resource teaching support, departmental Circulars 30/2011 and 37/2011 provide information for schools on the arrangements being put in place for the 2011-2012 school year. For the coming school year, an allocation of 90% of valid identified resource teaching allocations has been made to schools, in the first instance, 6o’clock to provide schools with the majority of their allocation, while also preserving enough capacity to deal with late applications and ensure the Department of Education and Skills remains within employment control framework obligations. In this context, I understand St. Catherine’s national school has been allocated 21.6 hours per week individual resource teaching hours to date. Full-time resource teaching and learning support posts may only be allocated at 25 hours per week. Schools have been asked to forward any outstanding applications or additional outstanding materials to support incomplete applications to the National Council for Special Education for its consideration as soon as possible but, in any event, no later than 16 September. I understand the school in question has submitted one application for additional resource teaching hours to the National Council for Special Education. Subject to this application fulfilling the qualifying criteria, it has the potential to increase the school’s resource teaching hours allocation. Having considered all of the outstanding applications received from schools by 16 September and depending on the level of demand, the National Council for Special Education may be in a position to revisit the 90% allocation of resource teaching hours made to date for schools. Therefore, there is potential for the number of resource teaching hours allocated to the school in question to increase to the extent that it may qualify for a full-time post. However, at this stage it is not possible to indicate if that will be the case.

School Accommodation Deputy Jack Wall: I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State for taking this Adjournment matter. The gaelcoláiste has been in temporary accommodation since its insti- gation a number of years ago. It was first situated in the Curragh before moving to Naas. Now it is proposed that it should move back to Kildare town. The arrangement in place with the gaelcoláiste situated in Naas and the proposed move to Kildare town in November was agreed last summer at a meeting between the patron and the former Minister for Education and Skills, Mary Coughlan. An official from the Department was present at that meeting and it was agreed that the standard accommodation provided for the gaelcoláiste would be on a par with that provided in the other second level schools in the area. It was further agreed that there would be sufficient accommodation available to meet the growing needs of the school. A further meeting took place in Tullamore last Thursday, 16 June, with staff of the Depart- ment’s building section. To put it mildly, rather than move the situation forward this meeting left the patron with major concerns about the future of the school. The Department offered the current VEC building in Kildare town on a take it or leave it basis and was unwilling to

586 School 23 June 2011. Accommodation contemplate any structural changes before the school’s proposed move to this premises. This move would force the school to reduce its intake and restrict the curriculum on offer because the building is not sufficiently large to cater for its growing needs. The school required 12 classrooms for the school year 2010-2011 and will require 14 classrooms as its enrolment continues to expand. The VEC building has only ten possible classrooms available and to bring science, home economics and art rooms up to health and safety standards would reduce the complement to nine, two of which are too small for a normal-sized class. A move to this location without proper development will strangle the school. I cannot com- prehend how this situation has been allowed to develop. There are several gaelscoileanna in Kildare, with more likely to be established in the coming years, but provision has still not been made for suitable premises for Gael-Choláiste Chill Dara. There is little sense in facilitating the establishment of gaelscoileanna if the facilities are not in place for the provision of education through the Irish language at secondary level. It is a ridiculous situation. The school has the support of wonderful parents who have gone out of their way time and again to ensure their children are educated. The school has a wonderful principal and a wonderful mechanism for the provision of second level education through the medium of Irish. However, it is being obstructed at every step. It is incredible that it is being moved from one inadequate facility to another. The school put a proposal to the Department that it be permitted to rent one of the two secondary schools in Kildare town which are no longer in use following their amalgamation into a new school premises. That proposal was given short shrift. Instead the school is offered a facility that is inadequate to meet the needs of current pupils and facilitate the inevitable expansion in enrolment. Two adequate premises are available but the Department will allow neither to be used to accommodate Gael-Choláiste Chill Dara. There is little evidence of forward thinking from the Department on this matter. This school’s enrolment is bound to increase in the coming years given the growing enrolment in the various gaelscoileanna in the surrounding area. The school must be permitted either to rent one of the vacant school premises that are adequate to its needs, which would probably not entail a much greater cost than that of its current set-up, or the VEC premises must be developed to meet its requirements. I ask the Minister of State to convey the urgency of this matter to the Minister for Education and Skills. This is not a fair deal for Gael-Choláiste Chill Dara and it is totally unacceptable that the board of management of the school, its pupils and their parents should be treated in this fashion.

Deputy John Perry: I listened carefully to what the Deputy said and I hope those who will make the decision on this matter are also listening. I am replying to this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn . I thank the Deputy for affording me the opportunity to outline to the House the current position regarding the provision of accommodation for Gael-Choláiste Chill Dara. This all-Irish post-primary school commenced operation in September 2003 with an initial enrolment of eight pupils, which had increased to 155 by September 2010. The school currently operates with temporary recognition under the patronage of An Foras Pátrúnachta. The matter of permanent recognition is being considered by the Department. The school is currently located on a temporary basis in a former VEC school building in Naas which must be vacated. However, it will be available to the school for the commencement of the 2011-12 school year. The Department has secured the use of a building in Kildare town that is currently occupied by Kildare vocational school and which the latter will vacate at the end of June. This premises will provide permanent accommodation for the school in the long term. A technical assessment of the building has been carried out and refurbishment works

587 National 23 June 2011. Monuments

[Deputy John Perry.] and an extension will be necessary to accommodate Gael-Choláiste Chill Dara. It is intended to proceed with the required works on a phased basis as soon as possible. The school has indicated its preference to relocate to another premises in Kildare town, but the Department understands this building is not available as it is required for other purposes. In a recent meeting the Department outlined to the school’s representatives how it intends to cater for the long-term accommodation needs of the school in Kildare town. Both parties also agreed to maintain ongoing contact on this matter.

National Monuments Deputy Joe Costello: I understand a report was recently received by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, regarding the national monument at Nos. 14-17 Moore Street. Over the years colleagues and I have inquired repeatedly about the status and condition of this monument. There is a need for urgency from the Government in regard to its proposals to celebrate the centenary of the 1916 Rising and deal with this important monument. No. 16 Moore Street was the headquarters of the leaders of the 1916 Rising and the place where they finally called a halt to the rebellion. Moore Street has scarcely changed since that time, almost 100 years ago, other then becoming more derelict. The street was a thriving trading centre in the past but is becoming more decayed by the day. It is one of two national historical monument sites related to the events of 1916. There was a long and concerted campaign, involving the National Graves Association, the Save 16 Moore Street campaign, various public representatives and others, to have the site declared a national monument and thus ensure its proper preservation and development as part of our cultural heritage and tradition. That was eventually achieved in 2006 when Dublin City Council included it in the list of protected structures, after which the then Government declared it a national monument in January 2007. Recognition as a national monument automatically confers preservation order status. Nevertheless, the site continues to deteriorate by the day. In addition, significant commercial development proposals were instituted at the Carlton site, envisaged as a flagship project for O’Connell Street and Moore Street. Planning permission was granted during the Celtic tiger period but the companies involved in the consortium are now largely in NAMA and nobody knows whether or when the development will commence. Part of the problem is that the proposal for the commercial development includes development on what is known as the back- lands, which constitute part of the curtilage of Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. This would be perceived by many people to be a desecration of the site and an interference with its entirety and integrity. The decision that must be made is that the commercial proposal should not include any commercial development in that area but rather that it would be the development of a museum and the restoration of the houses and the ambience that existed at the time. In this way then, the area extending from the GPO to Moore Street and Parnell Street would become a cultural and historic heritage quarter of Dublin city. This is the perception and vision of its future possessed by those who seek to have the site preserved. The centenary of 1916 is less than five years away and the commemoration activities should begin fairly rapidly. In this area there is no way the development that has received permission could possibly take place within this space of time because the developers are in NAMA at present and consequently, it is impossible for anything to be done. It is time for the Minister to move in and to act to protect and preserve the monument. Under the new national monuments legislation, the Minister is the person who has the responsibility and statutory entitlement to protect the monument. I understand that he recently received a report containing a series of

588 National 23 June 2011. Monuments proposals on the commercial development and that he is studying it at present. He should make available those proposals to the various stakeholders and interested parties who have been working to get this monument protected. I refer to those who worked to establish its monument status in the first instance and subsequently to have it developed as part of the centenary proposals. I highlight the fact that the point has been reached at which even though the Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street site was declared a national monument in January 2007, four years have elapsed and nothing has happened. Various plans have been proposed on a commercial basis but the site remains in dereliction and less than five years remain before the 1916 Rising centenary. Consequently, it now behoves the Minister to act on whatever proposals have been made and certainly to bring them into the public domain so that they can be properly analysed and scrutinised and to move forward with a comprehensive plan to protect one of our most fundamental and most important national monuments.

Deputy John Perry: I thank Deputy Costello for tabling the motion on the need for the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to disclose the contents of the report he has received on the development of the national monument at Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan. The Government fully appreciate the historical significance of these buildings as the site of the last military actions of the leaders of the 1916 Rising following the evacuation of the GPO. No. 16 is the site of the final council of war and final headquarters of the Provisional Govern- ment, which included five of the Proclamation signatories, namely, Pearse, Connolly, Plunkett, Clarke and McDermott. In January 2007, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government placed a preservation order on Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street under the National Monuments Acts. The purpose of this preservation order is to ensure the preservation of the buildings in the context of wider redevelopment proposals centred around the former Carlton cinema site. The preservation order covers Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and includes the yards to the rear of Nos. 15 and 16 Moore Street, extending to Nos. 8 and 9 Moore Lane. The effect of the preservation order is that any works affecting these properties, including any excavation or ground disturbance within, around or in proximity to them, require the prior written consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht under the National Monuments Acts. An Bord Pleanála has made a decision to grant permission, with conditions, for a mixed development on the former Carlton cinema site, which includes the Moore Street monument. The proposed development of the site, in accordance with the permission granted by An Bord Pleanála, envisages the retention of Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and No. 16 becoming a commemorative centre. The Deputy refers to the application received by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht last Friday for ministerial consent to carry out works at the national monument. The words proposed, which comprise the conservation of Nos. 14 to 17 as a commemorative centre to facilitate interpretation of the significant cultural history relating to the events of Easter 1916, are being considered carefully by the Minister and officials of his Department. The Mini- ster’s written consent will be required prior to the commencement of any works. The application includes the integration of the national monument within the larger Dublin central project. This would require works both outside and within the national monuments preservation order boundary. As the Deputy will appreciate, the application involves a large amount of material that must be considered carefully by the Minister. The Minister’s decision cannot be prejudiced by releasing, at this time, the full detail of the application that has been received. I assure the

589 Missing 23 June 2011. Persons

[Deputy John Perry.] Deputy, however, that he will have no problem in making the details publicly available once a decision has been reached on this matter.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Joanna Tuffy): I thank the Minister of State. Before moving on to the next matter, if there is a telephone close to the Minister of State, he might move it away from the microphone, as much of his reply may have been lost.

Deputy John Perry: I apologise.

Missing Persons Deputy Simon Harris: I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me the opportunity to raise this matter this evening and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, for taking this issue. For the first time in the country’s history, there is a full Cabinet Minister with specific responsibility for children and all the various issues that encompass children and families. This is an opportunity to finally put issues relating to children’s welfare, safety and protection front and centre on both the political and social agendas. This Department could get off to a good start if it could be seen to be used as a tool to bring together all the various agencies and perhaps other Departments to finally deliver on an issue on which the State has failed to deliver to date, namely, a specific missing children’s phone number. This is a matter pertaining to the well-being of every child in this country and is an issue of concern that probably is at the back of the mind of every parent. The role of this number is intended to be three-fold. First, it is to take calls on missing children and liaise with An Garda Síochána. Second, it is to provide a point of support and guidance for parents and family members of missing children and third, it is to support ongoing investigative efforts. We are told repeatedly, as I am sure all Members are aware, that when a child goes missing, time is of the essence. This State must and should do everything in its power to ensure the safety of its children and this includes providing timely assistance and intervention and ensuring that all processes and procedures are in place to protect children who go missing. The European Commission has created a dedicated number to act as a single point of contact across all European states. However, after more than four years, Ireland has failed thus far to introduce this number, 116000, which has been introduced in 15 other countries. This delay is utterly unacceptable and at this point is becoming embarrassing in Europe. We must have policies and procedures in place to deal with cases of missing children and to ensure immediate and co-ordinated action can be taken whenever a child goes missing. The necessity of this was brought home to me recently in my constituency when there was an attempted abduction of a young girl in Bray. Fortunately, in this case the young girl concerned managed to escape to safety but the incident has brought to the minds of everyone in Bray, County Wicklow and nationwide, the need to put in place these appropriate measures. There is a need to communicate the message to the Minister with responsibility for children that there is a need for her and the Department to co-ordinate the activities of the various agencies involved and to talk to organisations in the charity and NGO sectors which have been involved for a number of years in providing helplines on children’s issues. The country needs to consult them and harness their expertise. It is one thing being the poor relation in Europe economically, but we must not become the poor relation when it comes to issues of child protection. I urge the Minister to take action on this issue which has been dragging on for far too long.

590 Missing 23 June 2011. Persons

Deputy John Perry: I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter of the 116 000 hotline for missing children. The establishment of this hotline is a cross-departmental issue and the Minister intends to ensure every effort is made to have the hotline up and running as soon as possible. Under revised EU telecoms rules agreed in 2009 and, in particular, Article 27a of the universal service directive, member states were required to “make every effort to ensure that citizens have access to a service operating a hotline to report cases of missing children. The hotline shall be available on the number 116 000.” The same directive also requires member states to “ensure that citizens are adequately informed of the existence and use of services provided under the 116 numbering range, in particular, through initiatives specifically targeting persons travelling between member states”. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is responsible for transposing the directive into national law. The purpose of the number range is to ensure the citizens of the member states, including disabled users, and those travelling in other member states will be able to reach certain services that have a social value by using the same recognisable numbers in all member states. The combination of having the same number for the same service is intended to ensure a specific service, regardless of the member state one is in, will always be associated with a specific number within the Community. It was expected that this would provide the services with a pan-European identity to the benefit of the European citizen who would know that the same number dialled would give access to the same type of service in member states. In essence, the purpose of the 116 000 telephone number is to provide a contact number for families if children go missing. The allocation of specific numbers in the 116 number range in Ireland is managed by the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. To date ComReg has designated the following numbers: 116111 is assigned to Childline; 116123 is assigned to Samaritans; 116006 was assigned to the crime victims helpline; and 116000 was assigned to missing children. While these numbers have been assigned, the crime victims helpline is, like the missing child hotline, not yet operational. As of the beginning of 2011, the 116 000 telephone number is active in only 11 of the 27 EU member states. It has been assigned in 13 member states. The process of developing the 116 000 hotline has, to date, involved the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Depart- ment of Health, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of Justice and Equality, the HSE and ComReg. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs has in recent months met other Departments and will co-ordinate their activities and ensure the 116 000 hotline is established. The input of the Garda Síochána is central to the issue of missing children and the force has ultimate responsibility for the investigation of these matters. In recent years the Garda Síoch- ána and the HSE have worked closely on this matter. As the major statutory child care authority in Ireland, the HSE recognises the value of an EU common freefone hotline for missing children. It is of the view that access to a hotline telephone number can be of great assistance to parents when a child goes missing from home, while travelling or on holidays in another European country. It has statutory responsibility for the welfare of all children and a primary responsibility for the welfare of children missing from care. The Garda Síochána and the HSE take every incident of missing children extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring no vulnerable children are exploited or ill-treated as part of its responsibility to provide care for any children in the state who are deemed not to have appropriate or satisfactory care arrangements. This includes separated children seeking asylum.

591 The 23 June 2011. Adjournment

[Deputy John Perry.]

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs intends to ensure the hotline is established. She will write to her colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, to make arrangements for the progression of this issue. I again thank the Deputy who has been campaigning for the establishment of the hotline for some time. This reply indicates positive news in this regard.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 28 June 2011.

592 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Written Answers.

————————

The following are questions tabled by Members for written response and the ministerial replies as received on the day from the Departments [unrevised].

————————

Questions Nos. 1 to 14, inclusive, answered orally.

Legal Aid Service 15. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the total budget of the Legal Aid Board in 2010; the costs of each individual centre in the country and the amount of money paid by the body to private practitioners during 2010. [16778/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I can inform the Deputy that the Legal Aid Board is the statutory body which provides legal aid and advice in civil law matters. It also provides legal services to asylum seekers through the Refugee Legal Service. In 2010, the Legal Aid Board received total Exchequer funding of €32.192 million. This comprised a grant in aid of €24.225 million in respect of its civil legal aid operations as well as funding of €7.967 million to operate the Refugee Legal Service. The Board also generated its own income of €2.26 million, largely through contributions from clients towards the cost of the service and costs recovered, giving a total budget of just over €34.45 million. In respect of the civil legal aid operations, which is the area of most interest to the Deputy as I understand it, legal services are provided from 29 law centres throughout the country and a small number of specialist units, with administrative offices in Cahirciveen and Dublin supporting these law centres. Given the fact that there are over 30 locations, I am including the costs attaching to each centre separately in Appendix 1. The demand for the services provided by the Legal Aid Board has increased significantly in recent years. Applications for civil legal aid services, with the exception of asylum applications, increased from just over 10,000 in 2007 to 17,200 in 2010, which represents a 69% increase approximately. The past three years has seen a considerable increase in demand for the services of the Board and this coincides with the downturn in the economy. In the first five months of 2011 the demand for services increased by a further 22% on the same period last year indicating that the increase in demand shows no sign of abating. Apart from the sharp increase in applications, evidence internationally has pointed towards a greater need for access to legal services in areas such as family law, debt and employment during times of economic distress and Ireland 593 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] appears no different in this regard. Inevitably, this has created huge pressures for our law centres and our capacity to deliver legal services within a reasonable period of time. One effect of the increase in demand for the Board’s services has been an increase in waiting times to access a Board solicitor for those clients whose case does not necessitate a priority service. One of the ways the Board attempts to manage demand for its services is through the use of its Private Practitioner Schemes, under which private solicitors handle cases for Legal Aid Board clients where the client receives a near immediate service. Total expenditure on Private Practitioners in civil legal aid cases was just over €2.9 million in 2010. This comprised over €2.2 million on the District Court Scheme and a further €700,000 on the Circuit Court scheme. Both schemes are operated on a fixed case fee basis and any expenditure on the schemes comes from within the Board’s resources. I should also point out that a separate Private Practitioner Scheme is operated by the Refugee Legal Service and expenditure on this scheme in 2010 amounted to just over €490,000.

Law centre Amount

Dublin Blanchardstown €725,706 Brunswick Street €1,140,488 Clondalkin €651,131 Finglas €862,096 Gardiner Street €1,225,335 Tallaght €996,889 George’s Lane €256,633 Medical Negligence Unit €244,376 Cork Popes Quay €1,137,986 South Mall €1,010,668 Athlone €641,996 Castlebar €501,649 Cavan €274,163 Dundalk €343,335 Ennis €559,838 Galway €1,094,843 Kilkenny €665,175 Letterkenny €634,404 Limerick €495,731 Longford €354,475 Monaghan €441,536 Navan €525,443 Nenagh €562,471 Newbridge €534,597 Portlaoise €452,248 Sligo €367,289 Tralee €564,058 Tullamore €395,427 Waterford €549,361 Wexford €462,130 Wicklow €540,445

594 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Law centre Amount

RLS Dublin €6,265,306 RLS Cork €558,491 RLS Galway 475,148 Notes: 1. This is the estimated cost per law centre of the civil law centres, including salaries, operating and legal costs. 2. The costs of administrative offices are not included. The total costs of the Dublin and Cahirciveen administrative offices were approximately €4.5M.

Question No. 16 answered with Question No. 10.

Question No. 17 answered with Question No. 7.

Immigration Services 18. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to reform the immigration system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16627/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Government’s plans for the immigration system are outlined in the Programme for Government which commits to the introduction of comprehensive reforms to the immigration, residence and asylum systems including a statutory immigration appeals mechanism, which will articulate rights and obligations in a transparent manner. Deputies will be aware that the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 has been restored to the Dáil Order paper. It is my intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill at Committee Stage. One of my main objectives is to provide for a transparent and efficient immigration system which will support the overall economic and social goals of the Govern- ment. This will be complemented by a commitment to fair procedures for migrants supported by the statutory appeals mechanism which I have asked my officials to develop. Programme for Government The Programme for Government also elaborates on programmes in key sectors which will be supported by specific immigration initiatives.

• I have announced Ireland’s first formal Visa Waiver Programme as an integral part of the Government’s Jobs Initiative. The Programme will permit nationals of 16 specified countries who obtain a short term visa for the UK to visit Ireland without the need to obtain an Irish visa. In addition special arrangements will be put in place to facilitate visits by nationals of those 16 countries who are long term residents in the UK. The programme, which is designed to encourage tourism to Ireland, will commence on 1 July 2011 and will operate on a pilot basis until October 2012.

• The launch of the Education in Ireland brand underpins the Government’s commitment to encourage more international students to study in Ireland and to create new jobs in the sector. Our target is to double the number of international students studying in Ireland with a particular focus on students from India, China and the Middle East. To that end we will overhaul the student visa regime and ensure that advertising, diaspora policies and quality assurance systems are strategically developed to best position the international education sector. I am aware that a lot of work has already been done in this area and in some cases it is a matter of bringing that process to a speedy and successful conclusion. 595 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

• We will also look at the immigration regime to see what we can do to provide further encouragement to postgraduates and researchers. We will also permit postgraduate students to be allowed to work in Ireland for up to a year after they complete their studies. High-value research students will be permitted to bring families if they are staying more than two years.

Investment and Entrepreneurship I am also of the view that we need to look at how we can use the immigration system to tap into the entrepreneurial capacity of current and future migrants and also to bring investment into Ireland. The current regime, which has been in operation for a number of years, has been reviewed by my Department and it is considered to be insufficiently flexible in a number of areas, including the financial investment threshold and the employment targets. Furthermore, the existing system does not really cater for the needs of innovation start-up enterprises which will often initially employ only the principals or for high net worth individuals who would be willing to make a significant investment in the country in return for being allowed to reside here. Draft proposals in these areas are under discussion at present. Public Sector Reform The commitments regarding the immigration system will be underpinned by the Govern- ment’s programme for public sector reform. In addition to the independent appeals mechanism which I have already spoken of, we will examine the structures which deliver immigration policies with a view to improving overall performance and added value for the taxpayers. [This will include examining the level and range of application fees for immigration permissions with a view to recovering a reasonable portion of the administrative costs associated with processing applications. The Deputy will also be aware of the commitment in the programme for Government in relation to the potential transfer of responsibility for the Passport Office to my Department. Citizenship and Naturalisation I have committed to the efficient processing and determination of citizenship applications within a reasonable period of time and I have recently announced major reforms to the citizenship processing regime which include a 6 month turnaround on naturalisation applications and the introduction of a formal citizenship ceremony.

Public Sector Staff 19. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the current salary scales of the various grades of judges. [16622/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I would refer the Deputy to my response to his Parliamentary Question No. 294 on Tuesday 21st June 2011. The pay scales currently applicable to the judiciary are as follows:

Post Salary

Chief Justice €295,916 President of the High Court €274,779 Judge of the Supreme Court €257,872 President of the Circuit Court €249,418 Judge of the High Court €243,080

596 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Post Salary

President of the District Court €183,894 Judge of the Circuit Court €177,554 Judge of the District Court €147,961

Crime Levels 20. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which the number of criminal gangs known to be actively involved, directly or indirectly in drug importation, distribution, money laundering, racketeering or protection have increased or decreased in each of the past five years to date; the extent to which action has been taken to curtail their activity in the past; if it is intended to take major initiatives with a view to combating, in a substantial way, their growth activity and profit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16746/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Deputy will appreciate that organised crime, by its nature, is constantly evolving and diversifying in both its structures and its activities, so as to exploit opportunities for criminal gain. Given its complex nature and the fact that membership of organised gangs tends to be fluid and offences committed by members of criminal gangs may or may not be connected with an individual’s membership of such gangs, it is not feasible to give reliable figures sought by the Deputy. An Garda Síochána continues to deploy considerable resources in tackling organised and serious crime, and addressing such criminality remains a key ongoing priority both for the Government and for An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána will continue to vigorously tackle organised crime through undertaking a range of activities designed to disrupt and dismantle the operations of criminal organisations. This involves targeting serious criminals and organised criminal groups on a number of fronts, including through the use of focused intelligence led operations by specialist units such as the Organised Crime Unit, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation and the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation. An Garda Síochána also maintains close liaison with other law enforcement agencies internationally. Law enforcement efforts in this regard are underpinned by a comprehensive framework of criminal law measures. I have indicated to the House that I will keep under review the question of whether any further improvements could be made to the overall legislative framework in this area to render it more effective. In particular, I have asked my Department to undertake a specific review of the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 to see if its provisions can be strengthened. In addition, I will be bringing forward proposals for changes in the Proceeds of Crime legislation to increase the powers available to the Criminal Assets Bureau. As we know, financial gain will always be at the core of organised criminal activity and measures that target the proceeds of such activity, strike at the heart of such operations. Where there is an identified requirement for additional legislative provisions to further enhance existing provisions tackling organised crime, I will not hesitate in bringing forward proposals. 597 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

Finally the Programme for Government contains a number of other commitments which are aimed at helping bring to justice those responsible for committing crime. For example, the proposed establishment of a DNA database to assist An Garda Síochána in the investigation of serious crime.

Departmental Staff 21. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons over the past ten years employed by him, who did not undergo the required one year probation and appropriate screening procedures for their posts; the number that were promoted; if any of these persons were convicted of crimes against children or were charged with such crimes but were not able to stand trial because of pleading mental illness or for some other reason found unfit to plead; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16776/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am advised by my officials that they are not aware of any staff serving in my Department who fall (or fell) within the scope of the question. In accordance with the governing legislation and arrangements, all persons to be appointed to positions in my Department involving the imposition of clearance procedures and probationary periods have those arrangements applied to them as a matter of routine.

Firearms Licences 22. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Justice and Equality with particular reference to the report of the Garda Commissioner on the operation of the new firearms licensing system which has already been laid before Dáil Éireann, if he will confirm the precise number of restricted firearms licence applications which were received in each of the 28 Garda divisions since 1 August 2009 to date in 2011. [16791/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): As it has not been possible to compile the information requested by the Deputy in the time available, I have asked the Garda Commissioner for a report on the matter and will write to the Deputy when it becomes available.

Proposed Legislation 23. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide an update on his proposals to fast-track personal bankruptcy reform particularly in relation to introducing a flexible discharge period for those termed as honest bankrupts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16721/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): In line with a commitment in the Programme for Government a Personal Insolvency Bill is in the course of being developed in my Department to provide for a new framework for settlement and enforcement of debt and for personal insolvency. The commitment under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland is to publish the Bill in Quarter 1 of 2012. It is my objective to publish the measure ahead of the EU/IMF deadline, if possible. In developing the Bill, account is being taken of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in its recent Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement. That report provided an in-depth review of the personal debt regime. The economic and financial effects of certain of the new arrangements that are in contemplation are being carefully assessed

598 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed and their impact is fully anticipated and understood. I am glad to be able to inform the Deputy that earlier this week the Government approved my proposals for some interim reforms in the law of bankruptcy. The details will be announced by way of the publication of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011. That Bill will provide for a significant reduction in the application period to the court for discharge from bankruptcy subject to existing conditions. These conditions relate to the bankrupt having discharged the expenses, fees and costs of the bankruptcy and any preferential payments involved. The court will require to be satisfied that the estate of the bankrupt has been fully realised, all after acquired property has been disclosed and that it is reasonable and proper to grant the application. The honesty of the person applying for discharge, would I imagine, be an important factor in the courts consideration.

24. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his response to the views expressed on the cost of the referendum on judicial pay versus the anticipated savings of the proposed reductions in judicial pay. [16784/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): On foot of a commitment in the Programme for Government, the Government last week accepted my proposal to hold a referendum on judicial pay. The referendum will coincide with the upcoming Presidential election. The Attorney General’s office is now drafting the necessary legislation. As the Deputy is aware, salaries across the public service were reduced under the provisions of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 and the Financial Emer- gency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009. The salaries of judges were not affected on the ground that Article 35.5 of the Constitution does not permit reductions in judicial pay. Although the judiciary is exempt from the reductions, a majority of the judges have made voluntary contributions equivalent to the initial pension levy reduction. The referendum to amend Article 35.5 will, if passed by the people, allow reductions in judicial salary levels but only to the same extent as reductions in similar salary levels in the public service. It will also provide for reductions in the pay of judges in line with any future reductions in pay in the public service that are made in the public interest. It is essential to judicial independence — and to public confidence in the judiciary — that judges share — and be seen to share — the burdens caused by the economic and financial difficulties facing our State. I stress, however, that the amendment will not allow the Govern- ment to single out the judiciary for any pay reduction that is unrelated to a reduction in pay in the public service generally. The proposed constitutional amendment does not, therefore, endanger the independence of the judiciary. The issue of fair burden-sharing by all citizens during our economic emergency is far more important than any issue about the cost of the referendum. The deputy will appreciate, however, that by holding the proposed referendum to coincide with the Presidential election the costs will be substantially lower than might otherwise be the case.

Ministerial Appointments 25. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the contacts he had with the prescribed persons or organisations prior to the appointment of a person (details supplied) as confidential recipient and if he informed these organisations of this persons political donation to him. [16782/11]

599 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): As the Deputy is aware, on 14 June 2011, I appointed Mr. Oliver J. Connolly, Barrister-at-Law, to the position of Confidential Recipient under Regulation 6 of the Garda Síochána (Confidential Reporting of Corruption or Malpractice) Regulations 2007. The role of the Confidential Recipient is to be available to receive, in confidence, reports of corruption or malpractice within An Garda Síochána from Members of An Garda Síochána or civilian employees. Remuneration in respect of the position is €12,500 gross per annum. Section 6 (1) of the applicable regulation states: Confidential recipients 6. (1) The Minister shall, after consultation with the Commissioner, the Ombudsman Com- mission, the Garda Síochána Inspectorate, the Garda Síochána representative associations and the trade unions or staff associations recognised as representing civilians, appoint a person or persons as a confidential recipient or recipients. (2) A person so appointed shall be a judge, former judge, barrister or solicitor or a serving or former senior civil or public servant. In accordance with this regulation, consultation with the prescribed persons and organisations took place prior to the appointment of Mr. Connolly. I wish to stress two essential points about my decision to appoint Mr. Connolly. First, a person appointed as a Confidential Recipient must be a judge, former judge, barrister, or solicitor, or a serving or former senior civil or public servant. For twenty years, Mr Connolly has practised as a lawyer with outstanding credentials. I will give a synopsis of his achievements to illuminate his calibre. He qualified to practise as a lawyer in Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, and New York. At Trinity College Dublin, he teaches civil and commercial arbitration and mediation on the Masters-in-Law programme. He has diplomas in various fields of mediation and is a member of the American Bar Association’s Alternative-Dispute-Resolution Committee. From 2002 to 2003, he served as the Hoellering World Fellow in Residence with the American Arbitration Association in New York. Upon petition by the Irish-American Lawyers Association, he was admitted to practise before the Bar of the United States Supreme Court. Self-evidently, he possesses the qualities and qualifications inherently necessary to make him eligible for the role of Confidential Recipient. Second, the Confidential Recipient must be a person of the highest integrity. To feel free enough to report wrongdoing in the force, any member or civilian employee of An Garda Síochána who needs to report in confidence acts of corruption or malpractice must have the assurance that he or she can place his or her trust in the Confidential Recipient. I would go so far as to say that it must be manifest to them from the very character of the Confidential Recipient that their report will be taken seriously and their right to confidentiality protected. Mr Connolly is a person of the highest integrity. Mr. Connolly, as a Lawyer, has striven to reduce the legal and other costs for people involved in civil litigation and matrimonial disputes. Specifically, he has promoted the use of alternative dispute resolution, a procedure for settling disputes other than through costly litigation. His mediation service — Friary Law — assists disputing parties to negotiate an agreed settlement of contentious issues. His track record evinces a wholly admirable public-service commitment. For example, he provided the Law Reform Commission with invaluable assistance when it was preparing its report entitled Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation and Conciliation, which was published in 2010. He has been active in pressing policymakers to regulate legal services with a view to widening access to justice for citizens.

600 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Justifiably, his work and his integrity have attracted cross-party recognition. In April 2004, Michael McDowell TD, who was Minister for Justice in the Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrat administration appointed Mr. Connolly’s Friary Law as a nominating body for mediators under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Then, in March 2011, Brendan Smith TD, who was Minister for Justice, appointed Friary Law as a nominating body for the appointment of mediators under the Multi-Unit Development Act 2011. I share this well-evidenced opinion of his integrity. The contribution by Mr Connolly of a sum of €1,000 to my election campaign in 2007 as properly disclosed by me in accordance with current law and as published by the Standards in Public Office Commission some years ago played no part in my appointment of Oliver Connolly as confidential recipient, just as it played no part in the appointment of Oliver Connolly’s Friary Law by my predecessor as a mediator nominating Body under the 2011 Act.

Immigration Services 26. Deputy Áine Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to review the policy of direct provision. [16631/11]

36. Deputy Áine Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to reduce the number of direct provision centres around the country. [16630/11]

44. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the changes he will make to the direct provision system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16727/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 26, 36 and 44 together. The Reception & Integration Agency (RIA) of my Department is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers while their protection applications are being processed. As of today, RIA has 46 asylum seeker accommodation centres across 19 counties accommo- dating almost 5,800 residents. The system is a constantly evolving one, taking account of the ebb and flow of residents and of the financial resources available to RIA. The numbers needing to be accommodated by RIA have declined by 7% in the past year and this trend is continuing downwards. The 2011 estimates provision for RIA is €67.5 million, down €10 million (13%) from last year. Added to this is the requirement by RIA — as recommended in last year’s Value for Money (VFM) Report — to maintain an overall operational ‘spare capacity’ of less than 10%. Hence, by dint of a decline in demand, the number of asylum accommodation centres is falling. Five centres closed in 2008, six in 2009, eight in 2010 and more will be closed or downsized later this year. The direct provision system is designed to deliver humane and cost efficient housing for persons who are awaiting determination of their protection claims. It is my objective to speed up the asylum determination process to the greatest possible extent, consistent with natural justice and asylum law, to keep the number of persons housed in this system as low as humanly possible.

Proposed Legislation 27. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to enact legislation to strengthen the rights of victims of crime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16725/11]

601 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Preliminary work is underway in my Department on the preparation of a Criminal Justice (Victims’ Rights) Bill which willstrengthen the rights of victims of crime. I expect that a general scheme of the Bill will be ready for submission to Government for consideration by the end of this year.

Immigration Services 28. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will review the State’s asylum system in view of the criticism from the United Nations Committee Against Torture. [13447/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) issued its concluding observations on 6 June following Ireland’s first examination in Geneva last month under Article 19 of the UN Convention against Torture. In its concluding observations relating to refugees and international protection, the Committee made comments/recommendations in relation to a number of matters including provisions contained in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which is currently before this House, the lodging of appeals under the Dublin II Regulation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ireland’s recognition rate in respect of persons granted refugee status. As I indicated following the publication of the Committee’s observations, I will, in conjunction with my Cabinet colleagues, closely examine those observations and recommendations and the Government will, in due course, communicate with the Committee about the points raised. With regard to the question of reviewing the State’s asylum system, the Deputy is probably aware that the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which I recently decided to restore to the Dail order paper contains extensive provisions in the area of protection. The Bill comprehensively reforms and simplifies the current refugee status determination process by providing for the introduction of a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection presented by applicants. I believe that the asylum system currently in place is both fair and robust and that it will be further enhanced by the provisions of the 2010 Bill. I am currently developing a number of amendments to the Bill before commencing Committee Stage which I hope to be in a position to do in the near future.

Question No. 29 answered with Question No. 13.

Garda Strength 30. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the European average for police to population across the European Union; the Irish equivalent of same; the minimum number of gardaí deemed necessary; if the Commissioner provided information on pending retirements; when an intake of new recruits will be necessary to satisfy the minimum number of gardaí; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16626/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): There is no mathematical formula for determining the optimum strength of the Garda Síochána, or indeed any police force. Instead, it is a matter of Government policy, taking into account all the relevant factors such as population and the crime rate, as well of course as the availability of resources. Nor is it a straightforward matter to compare police strength in different jurisdictions. EUROSTAT, the statistical office of the European Commission, maintains statistics on police strength in the European Union, but direct comparisons using these figures are difficult to make. In order to make any proper comparison, account would have to be taken of any differences in police

602 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers function. For example, the Garda Síochána is not only the national police force, but also provides the national security and intelligence service, as well as an immigration service. In other jurisdictions these functions are discharged by separate agencies. The issue of civilian support staff would also need to be factored into any comparison. A greater level of civilian support staff releases proportionately more police for operational duties, resulting in a greater frontline strength than in a police force with similar police strength but a lesser level of civilian support staff. Other factors such as the prevailing crime rate would also need to be taken into account. On retirements, I am informed by the Garda Commissioner that the number of Gardaí who so far this year have retired or indicated that they will retire by the end of 2011 is 161. It should be said, though, that it is difficult to extrapolate from that figure an estimate of the final number of retirements for the whole year. The personnel strength of the Garda Síochána, as of 31 May 2011, the latest date for which figures are readily available, was 14,262. As the moratorium on Public Service Recruitment continues to apply to the Garda Síochána, no date has been fixed for future intakes into the Garda College or for the commencement of a recruitment competition. A decision on when recruitment will re-commence will take into account the rate of retirement in the Garda Síoch- ána and Government targets for reductions in public service numbers.

Departmental Expenditure 31. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will report on the total costs to the State of the visits of Queen Elizabeth II of England and the President of the USA. [16632/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): In respect of the costs arising for An Garda Síochána, I would refer the Deputy to my replies to Questions Nos. 2 and 12 of today’s date.

Garda Equipment 32. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamen- tary Question No. 258 of 6 October 2011, the progress made in relation to the roll out of sound level meters to the Garda Síochána nationally; the number of meters purchased and number in operation at present; the locations at which the Garda has access to sound level meters; if his attention has been drawn to any prosecutions which have resulted from the use of these meters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16793/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that, following a procurement process conducted last year in accordance with EU and national procurement procedures, twenty-nine class 1 sound level meters were provided to An Garda Síochána. The meters are deployed when and where operational needs demand. The Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963 provide, inter alia, for offences relating to silencers. While separate figures are not readily available for such offences, I understand that in 2010 there were 595 proceedings commenced and 189 convictions under the 1963 Regulations.

Proposed Legislation 33. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to update the powers of the Criminal Assets Bureau to pursue white collar criminals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16730/11]

603 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Deputy will be aware that the Programme for Government includes a commitment to strengthen the powers of the Criminal Assets Bureau in relation to the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. An Expert Group, established under the auspices of my Department, is currently reviewing the Proceeds of Crime legislation with a view to identifying possible improvements which would serve to enhance the powers of the Bureau. The Group is engaged in a comprehensive review of the operation of the legislation with particular regard to the experience of the Bureau to date. Where that experience highlights any impediment to the proper pursuit of assets deriving, or suspected to derive, directly or indirectly, form criminal conduct, this will be examined. With regard to the work undertaken so far by the Group, I can inform the Deputy that the Group is reviewing a number of areas including decreasing the amount of time which must elapse before criminal assets which have been frozen become the property of the State; increasing the powers of receivers over properties so as to immediately deprive criminals of the use of those properties; short term seizure of assets believed to be the proceeds of crime pending determination by the courts and further improving measures supporting international cooperation. In due course, I will bring forward any necessary legislative proposals arising from the review by the Expert Group. My proposals in this regard will be brought forward in the normal way.

Court Procedures 34. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the recent criminal case in the UK that collapsed due to a juror using a social media outlet and his plans to ensure this does not occur in this jurisdiction. [16783/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am aware of the case to which the Deputy refers. In the normal course of a trial a judge charges the jury, as he or she considers appropriate, as to its behaviour during the course of the trial and jury deliberations to ensure that no action is taken which could adversely affect the trial. It is a contempt of court, punish- able by a fine or imprisonment for a juror, to discuss the case with any person other than another jury member. This restriction would extend to discussion of the case in a social media forum. In addition, as the Deputy may be aware, the Law Reform Commission is considering the issue of jury service as part of its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008 — 2014. The Com- mission engaged in a public consultation last year and I look forward to the publication of their final report and recommendations which I understand is likely to be completed in the latter half of this year. The scope of the Law Reform Commission examination extends to consideration of juror misconduct and I will, in due course, consider the matter further in the context of that report.

Criminal Prosecutions 35. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of prosecutions to date under Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act regarding juror or witness intimidation. [16786/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 makes it an offence to harm or threaten or in any other way intimidate or put in fear another person who is assisting in the investigation by An Garda Síochána of an offence, or is

604 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers a witness or potential witness or a juror or potential juror in proceedings for an offence, or a member of his or her family, with the intention thereby of causing the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. I am informed by the Garda authorities that separate records are not maintained of offences under section 41 as between those directed against witnesses and those directed against jurors. Accordingly, the information available from the Gardaí covers both categories of individuals. The Deputy will appreciate that, of their nature, instances of intimidation of jurors are less likely to come to notice than instances of witness intimidation. The Gardaí rigorously enforce the provisions of the law relating to witness and jury intimidation and, of course, will continue to do so. The table below shows the position with regard to the number of proceedings commenced and convictions for offences under Section 41 of the 1999 Act for the period from 2000 to 16 June 2011.

Year Proceedings Convictions *

2011 13 0 2010 41 7 2009 31 11 2008 18 5 2007 16 3 2006 45 12 2005 22 6 2004 30 10 2003 30 7 2002 11 2 2001 6 2 2000 1 1 *Figures are provisional as they are recorded in respect of the year in which proceedings commenced and may change in light of the outcome of court proceedings.

Question No. 36 answered with Question No. 26.

National Disability Strategy 37. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans for the implementation of the national disability strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16729/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The National Disability Strategy was launched in September 2004 and its implementation continues to be the focus of Govern- ment policy. Key elements include the Disability Act 2005, the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, the Citizens Information Act 2007 and the Sectoral Plans of six Departments which set out how they will deliver services to people with disabilities. The National Disability Strategy is, in large measure, being implemented. Its implementation is monitored on an ongoing basis by the National Disability Strategy Stakeholder Monitoring Group which comprises Senior Officials from the relevant Departments, the Disability Stake- holder Group representing the sector, the National Disability Authority and Social Partners. Significant progress has been made to date through Departmental Sectoral Plans and the National Disability Authority continues to engage with Departments in this regard. 605 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

The Programme for Government commits to publishing, following wide consultation, a realistic implementation plan for the National Disability Strategy, including sectoral plans with achievable timescales and targets within available resources and ensuring whole-of-government involvement and monitoring of the Strategy, in partnership with the disability sector. In line with this commitment I am currently assessing the monitoring and implementation structures already in place and what may now be required to re-energise the Strategy and its implementation.

Legal Profession 38. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the plans he has to reform the public complaints system for the legal profession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16628/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Under the Programme for National Recovery 2011-2016, the Government undertakes to “establish independent regulation of the legal profession to improve access and competition, make legal costs more transparent and ensure adequate procedures for addressing consumer complaints”. These undertakings complement those structural reforms in the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland aimed at removing restrictions to trade and competition relating to the legal professions and legal costs, namely: • to establish an independent regulator for the legal professions and implement the recommendations of the Legal Costs Working Group; and • to implement the outstanding Competition Authority recommendations to reduce legal costs. I am, at present, giving detailed consideration to proposals for a new Legal Services Bill. The Bill, which is part of the Government Legislation Programme announced by the Chief Whip on 5 April 2011, is intended to give effect to the various commitments I have mentioned including those relating to the making of complaints. The time-line for publication of the proposals is Quarter 3 of 2011.

Compensation Payments 39. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if compensation will be paid to former residents of the Magdalene laundries as called for by the UN, the Irish Human Rights Commission and groups representing the former residents. [16788/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): In the context of the Magdalen laundries, the report of the Irish Human Rights Commission recommended that if, after investigation, State involvement/responsibility is established, the question of redress should be considered. The UN Committee Against Torture recommended that the State should investigate allegations of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of Magdalen laundries and victims of such treatment should obtain redress and have an enforceable right to compensation. The Deputy will be aware that the Government decided on a number of actions following its meeting last week which considered the circumstances of the women and girls who resided in the Magdalen Laundries. The Government believes it is essential to establish the true facts and circumstances relating to the Laundries as a first step. Along with my colleague, the Mini-

606 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers ster for State for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People, I am now following up on this decision with the relevant parties. An inter-departmental committee, chaired by an independent person, will also be set up to establish the full extent of State involvement.

Garda Strength 40. Deputy Paudie Coffey asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the fact that there are in the region of 20 Garda superintendent positions vacant in the State, including a vacancy in the Tramore Garda district, Waterford, his plans to fill these positions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16747/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The allocation of resources, including personnel, is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and his senior management team. The strength of An Garda Síochána and the allocation of those resources is continually kept under review by the Garda Commissioner and where necessary, derogations from the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the Public Service can be sought in exceptional circumstances from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Human Rights Issues 41. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the criti- cisms from the Irish Human Rights Commission that the human rights of prisoners, asylum seekers and former Magdalene women are being breached by the State. [13445/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): As the Deputy is aware, Ireland had its first examination under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on the 22nd and 23rd of May 2011. As part of this examination process, the Irish Human Rights Commission submitted a report to the UN Committee against Torture. Reports were also submitted to the Committee by Amnesty International, Justice for the Magdalens, SPIRASI, Global Initiative to End All Cor- poral Punishment of Children, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the International Disability Alliance. The Deputy will be aware that the UN Committee against Torture issued its concluding observations on Monday 6th June 2011. These concluding observations cover a wide range of areas from prison conditions to the total prohibition of corporal punishment, the Magdalen Laundries, the follow up of the Ryan Report and the processing of applications for refugee status, all of which impact on the remit of several Government Departments. As I indicated following the publication of the Committee’s observations, I will, in conjunction with my Cabinet colleagues, closely examine those observations and recommendations and the Govern- ment will, in due course, communicate with the Committee about the points raised. As regards the Committee’s observations on prison facilities, I would inform the Deputy measures are already being taken to address these issues and improve conditions in our prisons. The Programme for Government contains several commitments aimed at alleviating overcrowding, upgrading and improving facilities including in-cell sanitation, and to consider alternatives to custody which are available and can be used. On taking up office, I established a committee to review the Thornton project, to examine the need for adequate prison accommodation and to consider alternatives to custody. The Committee is due to report by 1st July and I look forward to considering their views.

607 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

Moreover, I previously informed the House that I intend to bring forward amendments to the Prison Rules 2007 which will address issues raised by the Committee and the Inspector of Prisons in the areas of complaint investigation, healthcare and deaths in custody. In relation to the Magdalen Laundries, the Committee recommended that, ”the State should institute prompt, independent, and thorough investigations into all allegations of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that were allegedly committed in the Magdalen Laundries and, in appropriate cases, prosecute and punish the perpetrators with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed, and ensure that all victims obtain redress and have an enforceable right to compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible”. The Deputy will know that the Government decided on a number of actions following its meeting last week which considered the circumstances of the women and girls who resided in the Magdalen Laundries. The Government believes it is essential to establish the true facts and circumstances relating to the Laundries as a first step. Along with my colleague, the Minister for State for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People, I am now following up on this decision with the relevant parties. An inter-departmental Committee, chaired by an independent person, will also be set up to establish the full extent of State involvement. It was agreed by Government that an initial report on progress made should be made to cabinet within 3 months of its establishment. In its concluding observations relating to refugees and international protection, the Commit- tee made comments/recommendations in relation to a number of matters including provisions contained in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which is currently before this House, the lodging of appeals under the Dublin II Regulation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Ireland’s recognition rate in respect of persons granted refugee status. The Deputy will be aware that the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which I recently decided to restore to the Dail order paper contains extensive provisions in the area of protection. The Bill comprehensively reforms and simplifies the current refugee status determination process by providing for the introduction of a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection presented by applicants. I believe that the asylum system currently in place is both fair and robust and that it will be further enhanced by the provisions of the 2010 Bill. I am currently developing a number of amendments to the Bill before commencing Committee Stage which I hope to be in a position to do in the near future.

Neighbourhood Watch 42. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the announcement of the Garda recruitment moratorium for 2011 and 2012, if he will consider a media and press promotion of the neighbourhood watch system to promote greater awareness by communities of their responsibility in supporting the Garda for minor and major crimes and to improve community safety; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16621/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by the Garda authorities that as the current Strategy and Implementation Plan for Neighbourhood Watch, covering the period 2007 — 2011, is in its final year of operation, it is now being reviewed. Future strategies to develop Neighbourhood Watch, and similar programmes such as Community Alert, as effective crime prevention initiatives will take account of the overall policing environment.

608 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Neighbourhood Watch is currently promoted in a variety of ways, including the Garda National Model of Community Policing, regular community safety campaigns, regional public crime prevention days, local community policing crime prevention initiatives, the Crimecall television programme and in conjunction with national events such as the National Ploughing Championships and the Ideal Homes Exhibition. Depending on policing needs at particular times, each of these promotion methods is developed and utilised to emphasise different aspects of Neighbourhood Watch with the goal of combating crime and promoting crime prevention awareness in the most effective ways. The assistance of the public is crucial to reducing and preventing crime in our local communities, and An Garda Síochána has long experience in developing and carrying out cooperative initiatives with the public. Neighbourhood Watch is an important example of such processes. An Garda Síochána will continue to deepen the involvement of the public in preventing crime through Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert and to provide assistance in achieving this.

Garda Strength 43. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the positions the Garda Commissioner sought to fill or promote, by Garda division in 2011; the positions that have been filled, by division; which positions have been refused by divisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16625/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I recently received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the filling of six Garda posts and on 22nd March the Government appointed one Deputy Commissioner, one Assistant Commissioner, one Chief Superintendent and three Superintendents in An Garda Síochána. The allocation of resources in An Garda Síochána, including the distribution of personnel, is a matter for the Commissioner in consultation with his senior management team and I have no role or function in that process. The Deputy will be aware that the moratorium on recruitment and promotions in the Public Service continues to apply to the Garda Síochána for both sworn members and civilian support staff. The situation is continually kept under review by the Garda Commissioner and further derogations can be sought in exceptional circumstances from the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform. Question No. 44 answered with Question No. 26

Proposed Legislation 45. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps he will take to reduce the costs of rents for struggling businesses in order to help restore economic competitiveness. [14238/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Deputy will be aware that the Programme for Government indicates that legislation will be introduced to end upward only rent reviews for existing leases. I am engaged in on-going consultations with the Attorney General in order to determine how this matter can best be expedited. In addition to the legislation which has been specified in the Programme for Government, I am also very conscious of the fact that one of the difficulties in relation to rent reviews is the absence of readily accessible and accurate information in order to determine the market rent payable in respect of any given set of commercial premises. The Deputy will recall that I

609 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] arranged for the restoration of the Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009 to the Order Paper. The Bill is now awaiting Committee Stage. I intend to bring forward amendments to the Bill to provide for the establishment of a public database containing relevant details of letting arrangements and rent reviews in the commercial property market. The Property Services Regulatory Authority will have responsibility for the management of this database. The recommendation regarding the database was contained in a Working Group report which was published in August of last year. That report also contained a recommendation for the adoption, by landlords and tenants alike, of a rent review arbitration code which was drawn up by the experts who participated in the Group and which was appended to the report. A particular feature of the code is that it contains detailed provisions dealing with the production of comparative evidence in relation to property transactions and it also places a firm duty on all parties to disclose all relevant information which is in their possession. As matters stand, parties are free to specify that the code should apply in relation to rent review arbitrations. I welcome the endorsement of the code by a number of significant stakeholders in the sector.

Departmental Committees 46. Deputy Nicky McFadden asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if an inquiry into the detention and abuse of women at Magdalene laundries will be announced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16629/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): As I have already indicated, the Government decided on a number of actions following its meeting last week which considered the circumstances of the women and girls who resided in the Magdalen Laundries. The Govern- ment believes it is essential to fully establish the true facts and circumstances relating to the Laundries as a first step. Along with my colleague, the Minister for State for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People, I am now following up on this decision with the relevant parties. An interdepartmental committee, chaired by an independent person, will also be set up to establish the full extent of State involvement.

Departmental Appointments 47. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to reform the appointments procedure to the board of the Equality Authority, the present board being scheduled to complete their term this summer in order that there is an open and transparent process of interview and selection that is independent of Government; and his plans regarding same. [16728/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I refer the Deputy to my reply below to Parliamentary Question No. 15984 of 16 June 2011. The position is unchanged since then. The Government has decided that new arrangements will be put in place for the making of appointments to State boards and bodies, such as the Equality Authority. In future, Depart- ments will invite expressions of interest on their websites for vacancies on the boards of bodies under their aegis. Ministers will not necessarily be confined to those who make expressions of interest, but will ensure all appointees have the relevant qualifications. The Deputy can take it that relevant appointments for which I am responsible will be made in due course in line with the above arrangements.

610 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Diplomatic Appointments 48. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will detail the contacts he has had with the US Secretary of State Ms Hillary Clinton and UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mr Owen Patterson MP, regarding the appointment of a successor to Mr. Declan Kelly as US economic envoy to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16881/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): During his two years as Economic Envoy, Declan Kelly invested considerable time and energy in a range of initiatives to attract new investment to Northern Ireland and to develop relationships which I believe will continue to bear fruit in the years ahead. The successful Northern Ireland Econ- omic Conference which took place in Washington last year is one example of the commitment and vision which he brought to the role of Economic Envoy. I have not discussed the appointment of a successor with the Secretary of State but I know of her continuing commitment to the peace process and her support for the Northern Ireland Executive. Indeed, following Declan Kelly’s resignation last month, Secretary Clinton reaffirmed that the United States will continue to work with Northern Ireland to expand the opportunities that have been identified during his tenure as US Economic Envoy. Of course, the Government will also continue to work directly with the Executive and support its efforts in any way we can, including through the North South Ministerial Council. We have benefitted tremendously from joint work, not least in the area of tourism, and there are other areas where working together we can increase investment and opportunity for all our people.

Public Sector Staff 49. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Finance the type of early retirement packages available for those working in the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16841/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): There are no early retirement packages available currently in the Civil/Public Service. The only provision available for early retirement is the Cost Neutral Early Retirement (CNER) Scheme which has been in operation since April 2005. The scheme permits persons who are within ten years of their preserved pension age (which is generally 60 or 65) to make an application to be allowed to retire with immediate payment of superannuation benefits on an actuarially reduced basis. As part of the programme to correct the public finances, the Government is committed to reducing numbers in the Public Service in the period to 2015 and is currently carrying out a comprehensive review of expenditure to examine all areas where savings and numbers reductions might be identified. Part of the overall policy on Public Service numbers may involve voluntary staff exit mechanisms, and the options in this regard will be considered by the Government in this overall context when the review is completed in the Autumn. Any such scheme would be carefully targeted to protect front-line services.

Departmental Functions 50. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Finance his plans to harmonise IT systems across Departments to improve compatibility and improve communication; the platform he has considered; and if migration to a cloud computing solution has been considered. [16853/11]

611 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As with all enterprises, public or private sector, compatibility and communication between disparate systems is generally achieved by the use of recognised industry-standard data formats where available. All guidance reflects to need for public bodies to comply with international standards and to implement industry standards where international ones do not exist. The Programme for Government sets out how we plan to rationalise the usage of ICT and encourage greater sharing of ICT infrastructures, services and resources over time, building on some of the initiatives that have already been implemented for the procurement of ICT hardware, networking, telecommunications, and software licensing and support. Cloud computing is very much to the fore of our thinking. In that regard, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is engaged in research and conducting trials with a number of major international ICT companies to determine what works best for public bodies and to develop compelling commercial models for adoption.

Departmental Staff 51. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Finance his plans to provide for redundanc- ies in the public sector; if will he indicate the provision for individual sectors such as local authorities, education, and so on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16855/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government is committed to reducing public service numbers in accordance with the Programme for Government. The actual exit mechanisms to be used will depend in part on the rate of natural wastage and decisions taken under the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure on the required future size of particular sectors and bodies.

Bank Guarantee Scheme 52. Deputy Peter Mathews asked the Minister for Finance the total amount of loans outstanding and deposits at each of the banks under the State guarantee; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16908/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The most up to date information on the detailed deposit funding position of the covered institutions is set out in the Financial Measures Programme (Chart 5) published on the Central Bank of Ireland website, http://www.centralbank.ie. Current institution specific information is not presented in the report owing to its commercial confidentiality. The most recent published information on deposits for each institution can be found in their Annual Reports available on their respective websites. The Annual Reports also contains detailed information on outstanding lending. The Deputy will recognise that owing to consideration of market sensitivity, it would not be advisable for me to comment on detailed financial information reported by each institution or to seek to interpret it in overall terms.

Bank Deposits 53. Deputy Peter Mathews asked the Minister for Finance if there are non-repatriated profits on deposit at banks located in the International Financial Services Centre; the amounts on deposit in Irish banks and the amounts on deposit in foreign banks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16909/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am informed by the Central Bank that it does not hold or require regulated firms to provide it with any information in respect of non- repatriated profits for any group of firms. Banks secure their funding from a variety of sources and also receive deposits from their customer base. There is no distinction made by banks

612 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers reporting to the Central Bank on the nature of the funding or deposits, be it from surplus working capital, cash or profits retained by depositors pending future investment. The Central Bank does however publish aggregate deposit statistics in its monthly Money and Banking Statistics series, which can be accessed at www.centralbank.ie. The Central Bank has advised that the value of deposits in the Money and Banking Statistics only includes the resident offices of the banks; it does not include foreign branches and subsidiaries The Central Bank has informed me that the value of deposits from Irish residents and deposits from non-residents held in Irish resident credit institutions at the end of April 2011 is as follows:

Month Deposits from Irish Residents Deposits from non-residents

Euro area Rest of the world

April 2011 €319,478m €135,611m €163,391m

Bank Guarantee Scheme 54. Deputy Paschal Donohoe asked the Minister for Finance the value of guaranteed bank bonds that have been paid off by the State since September 2008; the breakdown of these payments by bank; the value by bank that is outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16910/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): No payments have arisen for the State in respect of any of the banks’ guaranteed liabilities. It will be a matter of the utmost priority for the Government to ensure that no payment under the Guarantee arises in the future. The Deputy will be aware that Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) published on 1 April 2011 the total senior and subordinated debt issuances by those banks covered by the Guarantee as at April 2011. This information is available on the Central Bank’s website at www.centralbank.ie. The CBI has advised that publishing details per individual institution does not form part of any statistical series. The Central Bank of Ireland has advised me that the latest information they have in relation to the value of bonds held by the six covered institutions is as follows:

Value of Bonds

Senior Bonds Guaranteed: €20,808m Senior Bonds Unguaranteed secured: €19,632m Senior Bonds Unguaranteed unsecured: €16,306m Subordinated bonds: €6,250m

Total €62,996

Tax Clearance Certificates 55. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Finance if he will facilitate a situation with the Revenue Commissioners whereby an organisation (details provided) in County Cork can secure payment from a public body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16914/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the organisation concerned has substantial tax debts and on that basis, Revenue will not issue a tax clearance certificate at this time. Revenue has afforded the organisation an oppor- 613 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] tunity to address certain matters by 27 June at which stage, if these matters are satisfactorily addressed, there may be scope for discussion on how matters may proceed from there without recourse by Revenue to further enforcement action. The organisation’s suitability for the issue of a tax clearance certificate will be reviewed by Revenue in light of these developments.

State Properties 56. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Ques- tion No. 54 of 2 June 2011, if an issue concerning a property previously owned by the dissolved company has arisen and which seriously affects an adjoining property owner, can that adjoining property owner contact the Office of Public Works regarding such a matter (details supplied). [16917/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): I would refer the Deputy to my answer to previous PQ No. 54 of 2 June 2011, in that the Minister or the Commissioners of Public Works only become aware that particular asset(s) have vested in the Minister, by virtue of the State Property Act 1954, when an interested party gives notice to an issue pertaining to the asset(s) concerned. In this regard, interested parties can contact the Property Management Services section of the Office of Public Works, at which time the matters raised are investigated.

National Asset Management Agency 57. Deputy Arthur Spring asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether there is a need to appoint Government representatives to the National Asset Management Agency; the number of times the head of the National Asset Management Agency reports to him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16918/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): There are sufficient provisions in the NAMA legislation to ensure appropriate accountability to me as the Minister for Finance and to the Oireachtas. The NAMA legislation provides for various reporting mechanisms that underpin the accountability of the Agency to the Oireachtas, including:

• section 59 which makes provision for the Chairperson and CEO of NAMA to appear before a Committee of the Oireachtas, if requested to do so, which is examining matters relating to NAMA. The Chief Executive of the NTMA and the Chief Executive of NAMA have appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and the Public Accounts Committee when requested to do so; and

• the requirement that NAMA must submit annual accounts which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee of Public Accounts may examine NAMA on these audited annual accounts.

Outside of this statutory reporting, the Chairman of NAMA has reported to me on a number of occasions since my appointment as Minister in March. Furthermore, I have also met with the full NAMA Board. I expect NAMA to comply to the maximum extent possible with the commitment in the Programme for Government, which states that there will be the highest standards of transparency in NAMA’s operations. A dedicated unit in my Department liaises on a daily basis with NAMA, ensures that the Agency’s operations are consistent with Government policy and advises me in relation to developments. In the circumstances as outlined above I do not see any immediate need to make further appointments to the NAMA Board, although I will keep this situation under continuing review.

614 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Departmental Bodies 58. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin asked the Minister for Finance the status of the fiscal advisory council contained in the programme for Government; the way that the council will be composed; if the composition of the council will have to be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas; the frequency with which the council will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16921/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government is committed to a wide- ranging agenda of reform in relation to its budgetary architecture. The commitment is set out both in the Programme for Government and the Joint EU/IMF Programme of Financial Sup- port for Ireland, and includes the establishment of a Fiscal Advisory Council. As the Deputy may be aware, the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the Joint Programme requires, as a structural benchmark, that the following steps are taken by the end of the second quarter of 2011:-

— specify the role of the Fiscal Advisory Council,

— appoint its members, and

— allocate resources to the Council.

Work is progressing to ensure that this deadline is met. Details of the arrangements being put in place in relation to the Fiscal Advisory Council will be announced shortly. While the Council will be independent, it is envisaged that the Oireachtas will play an important role in relation to it.

Pension Provisions 59. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Finance the reason staff at an academy (details supplied) are being levied both the newly established pension levy on private pensions, while they are already subject to the public sector pension levy; and the way he will address this anomaly of a private body being deemed to be public because it receives State funding. [16923/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Public servants who are members of public service pension schemes are liable to pay the pension-related deduction legislated for in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009. The applicability of the deduction to staff at the academy referred to by the Deputy arises from section 1 of the Act, by way of the definition of ‘public service body’, which includes, at paragraph (i) ‘a body...that is wholly or partly funded out of money provided by the Oireachtas or from the Central Fund...- and in respect of which a public service pension scheme exists or applies or may be made’. The deduction arising under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, in addition to normal contributions made to pension schemes before the introduction of that Act, qualify for income tax relief. As such these amounts are treated for income tax purposes in the same way as contributions made by private sector workers to funded pension schemes. Employees in both sectors qualify for tax relief as respects all contributions made towards the cost of pensions provided by their employers, subject only to the appropriate age and earnings limits. As to the temporary 4 year pension levy being introduced to fund the Jobs Initiative, the levy will apply to funded pension arrangements whether in the private sector or the public sector. A stamp duty of 0.6% will be applied to the market value, on the valuation date,

615 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] of assets under management in pension funds and pension plans approved by the Revenue Commissioners under Irish tax legislation, as set out in section 4 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2011. In the circumstances as outlined above, I do not consider it anomalous for the employees concerned to make contributions or additional contributions towards the cost of their pensions provision under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 and at the same time for the administrator or insurer of any funded pension scheme operated by their employer to be subject to the new temporary 0.6% pension fund levy.

Croke Park Agreement 60. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details of the expected increase in the annual public sector pension bill and the once-off lump sum payments attributable to the persons who account for the €289 million saving in the public sector pay bill arising from the Croke Park Agreement; and if he will therefore confirm the net saving to the State from such persons leaving the public service. [16937/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): Under current standard terms of employment, public servants generally can earn a pension of up to half their final salary and a lump sum of up to one and one half times that salary depending on years served. The precise calcu- lations of the amount involved as sought by the Deputy are not available to me at this time. However, the relevance of this to the estimated sum of €289 million in sustainable pay savings referred to in the question is not clear and for the following reasons. The Croke Park Agree- ment relates to pay savings. In that context, as pension costs will arise in any event for public service employees it is considered that the estimate of sustainable pay bill savings in the order of €289m is a reasonable reflection of pay savings arising from the Croke Park Agreement. This saving has been driven primarily by not filling vacancies arising from a reduction in staff numbers of 5,349 during the period but also other factors such as reductions in overtime costs, which are down by 5.2%, and reformed work practices and rationalisation. Public service pension costs have increased over the period. However, this is not a direct function of the Croke Park Agreement but, rather, represents costs which would arise in any event. The cost increase is not due to the Croke Park Agreement but is essentially caused by increased longevity (i.e. fewer pensioners dying) and more people retiring normally. The Body’s report, correctly, foot-noted the pension increase over the period but, equally correctly, did not seek to relate it to the Croke Park reform process. The Body’s Report also footnotes the costs associated with the voluntary early retirement and redundancy schemes which were offered in the HSE last year, with one-off costs of €99m for lump sums and statutory redundancy paid in 2010. It should be noted that any voluntary early retirement scheme incurs up-front once-off costs while the savings remain sustainable into the future.

Banks Recapitalisation 61. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the consultations he has had with the European Commission or the European Central Bank prior to his recent announcement in the United States of his intention to impose losses on unsecured, unguaranteed senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16938/11]

62. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance when he intends to formally raise with the European Central Bank his plans to impose losses on unsecured, unguaranteed

616 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16939/11]

63. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he intends to proceed with his plans to impose losses on unsecured, unguaranteed senior bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society in the absence of the support of the European Central Bank. [16940/11]

64. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details, including maturity dates, of the remaining unsecured, unguaranteed senior bonds in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. [16941/11]

65. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide details of the nature of the type of securities in place in respect of secured senior bonds in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16942/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 61 to 65, inclusive, together. The Government’s policy with regard to senior bondholders is consistent and has not changed from the position I set out in my Statement on Banking on 31 March last. All senior bondholders in the pillar banks AIB/EBS and Bank of Ireland, and Irish Life and Permanent, whether guaranteed or unguaranteed, will be repaid in full. As I set out to the House in my Statement in March, and on a number of occasions since then, this is essential to maintain the market reputation of these institutions and to ensure their return to market funding in due course. However, in my March Statement, I also indicated that the position regarding the bondholders in Anglo and INBS — institutions in different circumstances to the remainder of the banking system — would be considered following the completion of the independent review of the capital requirements of INBS and Anglo last month. While the Central Bank has concluded that no additional capital is required for these institutions, this does not remove the onus on the Government to consider all options to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of resolving these institutions. Therefore, while there was no specific consultation with the European Central Bank or the European Commission prior to the recent announcement regarding the Anglo and INBS senior bonds, this announcement was consistent with the Government’s position as stated previously. I have also indicated that, in the autumn, I will raise the issue of Burden Sharing which will allow for the imposition of loses on unguaranteed and unsecured senior bondholders in Anglo and INBS with the IMF and EU authorities. Regarding the details of the maturity schedule of the remaining unsecured, unguaranteed senior bonds in Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, this detailed information is being compiled and will be supplied to the Deputy as soon as possible. Regarding the nature of the securities in place in respect of the secured senior bonds, Anglo Irish Bank advise that these bonds are backed by Anglo’s commercial property mortgage loans. Irish Nationwide advises that it does not have any secured bonds in issue.

EU-IMF Programme 66. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if, in the event of the final deal

617 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Michael McGrath.] with Greece resulting in burden sharing with private creditors, it will change his views on debt restructuring for Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16943/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): There is no question of the Government restructuring its debt. We are determined to work with our European colleagues to find a common, shared approach to the issue of the sovereign debt crisis. We are committed to taking the steps necessary to restore our public finances to a sustainable position and implementing the policies that will assist this economy in returning to growth and generating employment. Based on conservative projections of our funding needs and taking account of funding possibilities, there is no urgency about a return to the markets. Indeed, the purpose of a programme such as the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland is to provide the space necessary for economic and fiscal adjustment to take place. Based on current projections and assuming full drawdown of the EU/IMF funds and no market access, the State has access to sufficient funds for its needs into the second half of 2013. The steps necessary to enable a return to the sovereign debt markets include resolution of the banking sector issues and continued progress in the reduction of the budget deficit in line with the targets agreed in the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support, together with the implementation of policies that will see us return to sustainable economic growth. It is the stated intention of the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) to return to sovereign debt markets as soon as market conditions permit. The NTMA is in constant contact with market participants and will advise me when it feels that the time is right to re-enter the markets.

67. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he and or the National Treas- ury Management Agency are engaged in any contingency planning to deal with the possibility of Ireland not being able to return to the international bond markets in 2012 or early 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16944/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As I have previously outlined in relation to similar questions in the recent past, it is the stated intention of the National Treasury Manage- ment Agency (NTMA) to return to sovereign debt markets as soon as market conditions permit. The steps necessary to enable such a return include resolution of the banking sector issues and continued progress in the reduction of the budget deficit in line with the targets agreed in the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support, together with the implementation of policies that will see us return to sustainable economic growth. A key development in that regard has been the publication of the results of the bank stress tests on 31 March 2011 and the associated recapitalisation exercise which have been well received by investors and rating agencies alike. The NTMA is in constant contact with market participants and will advise me when it feels that the time is right to re-enter the markets. This is an issue that is under constant and close review by all concerned. I should say that, based on conservative projections of our funding needs and taking account of funding possibilities, there is no urgency about a return to the markets. Indeed, the purpose of a programme such as the EU/IMF Programme for Ireland is to provide the space necessary for economic and fiscal adjustment to take place. Based on current projections and assuming no market access, the State has access to sufficient funds for its needs into the second half of 2013.

Fiscal Policy 68. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance his plans to increase the loan thresholds which the Credit Review Office can examine. [16945/11]

618 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Credit Reviewer in his last quarterly report referred to his proposals to raise the current cap on the refusals which can be reviewed by his Office to €500,000. The current threshold of €250,000 is specified in S.I. 127 of 2010. My officials have already been in correspondence with the Central Bank on this issue and the matter is under active consideration in my Department at present.

Banks Recapitalisation 69. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Finance the amount of money lent or invested by the Exchequer in the guaranteed financial institutions and National Asset Manage- ment Agency broken down institution by institution on a year by year basis since 1 January 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16960/11]

70. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Finance the amount of money lent or invested by the National Pensions Reserve Fund in the guaranteed financial institutions and National Asset Management Agency broken down institution by institution since 1 January 2008 on a year to year basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16961/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 69 and 70 together. In 2009, the Exchequer funded a €4 billion capital injection into Anglo Irish Bank. In 2010, €30.85 billion was committed to Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) and Educational Building Society (EBS) by way of Promissory Notes but there was no Exchequer expenditure associated with these Promissory Notes in 2010. In 2010, the Exchequer provided €625 million to EBS and €100 million to INBS by way of special investment shares. This method of investment gave the State extensive powers and full economic ownership of the two building societies. In March 2011, the Exchequer provided a combined €3.06 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and INBS, representing the first instalment of the Promissory Notes committed to those institutions in 2010. In June 2011, the Exchequer will provide €25 million to EBS, representing the first instalment of the Promissory Note committed to that institution in 2010. In relation to NAMA, in 2010 the Exchequer provided NAMA with two loans totalling €299 million, €250 million of which was to provide working capital to NAMA and €49 million of which was used to inject ordinary equity into the NAMA special purpose vehicle. The €250 million loan was repaid in 2010 while the €49 million loan was repaid in early 2011. In relation to the National Pensions Reserve Fund (NPRF), in May 2008, the Fund invested €191 million in AIB subordinated debt. In July 2008, it invested €44 million in Bank of Ireland subordinated debt (this investment has been exchanged for senior debt of Bank of Ireland which matures in January 2012). In the same month, it invested €200 million in Irish Life & Permanent mortgage-backed debt (maturing in July 2011). Following the frontloading of the 2009 and 2010 Exchequer contributions to the Fund, the NPRF invested €3.5 billion each in Bank of Ireland (in March 2009) and Allied Irish Banks (in May 2009) at the direction of the Minister for Finance. In 2010, the NPRF, at the direction of the Minster for Finance, participated in a share placement and rights issue as part of a capital raising announced by Bank of Ireland. This involved the conversion of a portion of its 2009 preference share investment into ordinary

619 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.] shares, the repurchase by the bank of warrants issued in conjunction with the 2009 preference shares and transaction fees. In 2010 also, the NPRF injected a further €3.7 billion in capital into AIB. In 2011, at the direction of the Minister, the NPRF liquidated assets in order to set aside €10 billion in cash to meet the Fund’s proposed contribution to the EU/IMF Programme of Finan- cial Support for Ireland.

71. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Finance the amount of money paid by the guaranteed financial institutions and the National Asset Management Agency to the Exchequer and the National Pensions Reserve Fund, respectively, by way of payment for the guarantee or interest or dividend on shares in each year since 1 January 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16962/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The sum of €1,932,370,435 has been paid into the Exchequer in respect of all fees and interest accumulated under Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Scheme (CIFS) and the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme 2009. Bank of Ireland paid €214.5 million to the NPRF in February 2011 in respect of a divided on the State’s remaining preference shares, no payment was made in 2010 due to the dividend stoppers. NAMA is not a covered institution under the terms of the ELG Scheme and does not benefit from a guaranteed under the Scheme. Neither does it remit interest or dividends to the Exchequer.

Financial Services Sector 72. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance in view of previous responses by him that it was not possible to identify the bondholders of Irish banks because of the selling on of bonds to secondary markets if he will identify and provide details of the original buyers of those bonds. [16969/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As I informed the Deputy previously, as bonds are usually issued in bearer form the purchasers of the bonds are unknown to the issuing bank. When a bank issues a bond, whether by private placement or public issue, it would be usual practice for a securities depository company, such as Clearstream and Euroclear, to purchase the bond on behalf of their customers and the banks would not necessarily know the actual owner of the bond. Securities depository companies such as Clearstream and Euroclear usually manage, safe- keep and administer the securities that it holds on behalf of the purchasers of the bonds and the identity of the purchasers of the bonds is not disclosed in the public domain or to the issuer.

State Banking Sector 73. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance with regard to Anglo Irish Bank repaying a €750 million bond on 31 January 2011, if it was senior unsecured debt bor- rowed on the 17 January 2006 at the height of the property boom; and to whom was this money repaid [16970/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The €750 million bond that matured on 31 January 2011 was issued in January 2006 (the bond settled on 31 January 2006). This was a senior unsecured bond which was guaranteed by the Irish Government from September 2008

620 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers until September 2010 under the CIFS scheme. The €750million was repaid to the bond holders who held the bond on its maturity date. The bank’s medium term debt is publicly traded and dealt through clearing house systems. An issuer (such as Anglo) does not have any access to the records of those systems. Furthermore, the issuer has no means of establishing the underlying ownership at any given time. Unlike in the case of shares, the holders of listed debt instruments are not subject to a disclosure regime. The Deputy will be aware that as bonds are usually issued in bearer form the purchasers of the bonds are unknown to the issuing bank. When a bank issues a bond, whether by private placement or public issue, it would be usual practice for a securities depository company, such as Clearstream and Euroclear, to hold the bond on behalf of their customers and the banks would not necessarily know the actual owner of the bond. Securities depository companies such as Clearstream and Euroclear usually manage, safe- keep and administer the securities that it holds on behalf of the purchasers of the bonds and the identity of the purchasers of the bonds is not disclosed in the public domain or to the issuer.

Special Educational Needs 74. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding constraints in the provision for special needs education for children with autism; the position regarding whether schools (details supplied) will be adequately funded and staffed for the next year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16889/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The details supplied by the Deputy refer to two separate issues — the staffing of a school in the inner city of Dublin for the 2011/2012 school year and a decision taken by my Department on a proposal for funding from a centre on the north-side of Dublin. I understand that the National Council Special Education is presently engaging with the Board of Management of the school in question in the inner city regarding the future of the school taking into account current and expected pupil enrolments. My Department took a decision not to provide funding to support the centre referred to by the Deputy as the proposal submitted was not in line with my Department’s policy on educational provision for children with autism. I wish to clarify for the Deputy that my Department has no direct funding arrangements with the centre. As the Deputy is aware my Department’s policy is focused on ensuring that all children, including those with autism, can have access to an education appropriate to their needs, prefer- ably in school settings through the primary and post primary school network. This facilitates access to individualised education programmes, fully qualified professional teachers who may draw from a range of autism-specific interventions, including ABA, special needs assistants, and the appropriate school curriculum with the option where possible of full/partial integration and interaction with other pupils. As each child with autism is unique it is important that children have access to a range of interventions so their broader needs can be met. My Department’s policy is to provide for children with special educational needs, including autism, to be included in mainstream schools unless such a placement would not be in their best interests or the interests of the children with whom they are to be educated. Some children may be supported in a special class attached to a mainstream school. These students have the option, where appropriate, of full/partial integration and interaction with other pupils. Other children may have such complex needs

621 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] that they are best placed in a special school. Students with special educational needs have access to a range of support services including additional teaching and/or care supports. In special schools and special classes, students are supported through lower pupil teacher ratios. Special needs assistants may also be recruited specifically where pupils with disabilities and significant care needs are enrolled. Reflective of the important role of continuing professional development my Department has put in place a training programme for teachers in autism-specific interventions including Treatment and Education of Autistic Communication Handicapped Children (TEACCH), Pic- ture Exchange Communications System (PECS) and Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) through the Special Education Support Service. The Deputy will be familiar with the ABA pilot scheme which was funded by my Department for the past decade. All of the centres which participated in this scheme have been granted recognition as special schools for children with autism. These schools will operate in line with my Department’s policy. Following their recognition the new schools are currently progressing well in the transitional phase. Twelve schools have opened and the remaining school is scheduled to open shortly. It is my intention to continue to support this transitional process. The pilot scheme was established in the absence of a network of school-based special classes for children with autism which is now available. The establishment of this network of autism- specific special classes in schools across the country to cater for children with autism has been a key educational priority in recent years. In excess of 430 classes have now been approved around the country at primary and post primary level, including many in special schools.

State Examinations 75. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has considered allowing students who sit and fail leaving certificate higher level maths to complete some form of matriculation mathematics exam to allow them to gain entry into third level institutions as was discussed during an Adjournment debate on 1 June 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16847/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The report of the Project Maths Implementation Support Group, an industry/education partnership designed to add value to Project Maths, which included higher education participation, was published in June 2010. It included a recommendation that higher education institutes should offer a second chance entrance examination in mathematics in late August/early September targeted at students who have taken Mathematics at Higher level in the Leaving Certificate but who have failed to meet matriculation requirements. The availability of this safety net was seen as a factor in encouraging more students to sit higher level Mathematics. The admissions criteria for entry to higher education institutions are legally a matter for the institutions themselves. However, a range of colleges are now providing a second chance entrance examination specifically for courses such as science and engineering courses. However, some of the colleges which engaged in this in previous years have now ceased the practice. It should be noted that the proportion scoring below grade D in higher level Mathematics in 2010 was 3.7%

76. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to increase interest in maths and science, either through incentivisation at examination time or further modification to the respective curricula and the way they are taught. [16852/11]

622 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A major programme of reform in mathematics, Project Maths, began in all second level schools at both junior and senior cycle in September last, building on the experience of 24 schools which began the programme in 2008. Project Maths is designed to encourage better understanding of mathematics, to reinforce its practical relevance to everyday life and to ensure better curriculum continuity across the system. It is supported by a comprehensive investment in professional development for teachers which will continue to at least 2013. Mathematics has the highest participation of any subject in the Leaving Certificate, but only some 16% sit Higher level mathematics. A key aim of Project Maths is to encourage more students to take the subject at higher level. A further incentive will apply from 2012, under which 25 additional CAO points will apply to all students scoring at least grade D3 in higher level Mathematics. Project Maths is supported by materials and resources on the website www.ProjectMaths.ie and by an industry education partnership designed to add value through co-operation across higher education, second level and industry. The work of the Discover Science and Engineering programme, which has extended its remit to Mathematics, is also important in this respect. In addition, career awareness information on opportunities in the science technology, engineering and mathematics sectors is featured on www.careersportal.ie, a guidance tool which is now widely used in schools. In science, the key challenges are to improve participation in senior cycle Physics and Chem- istry. As part of this approach, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has developed revised draft syllabuses for Leaving Certificate Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and is currently engaging in a public consultation on these, prior to submitting its advice to my Department. An important objective is to build on the hands-on investigative approaches already in place in junior cycle, and to strengthen the emphasis on practical assessment and the inter-disciplinary nature of science in society. The forthcoming national literacy and numeracy strategy will also play an important role in strengthening these skills in schools.

Residential Institutions Redress Scheme 77. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of persons who applied to the redress board for compensation from 2002 to date; the number whose applications were successful; the total sum paid out; the average amount paid to each applicant; the outstanding number of applicants to be dealt with; the number of institutions and applicants associated with each of the different churches; when it is expected to complete the redress scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16857/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The closing date for receipt of applications by the Residential Institutions Redress Board was 15 December 2005. However, the Board, can at its discretion, extend the period for receipt of an application where it considers there are exceptional circumstances. At the end of May 2011, the Board had received 15,135 applications, of which 14,592 had been finalised, resulting in 13,669 awards and 923 applications being withdrawn, refused or resulting in a nil or no award. The Board had 543 applications to finalise and a further 567 requests for late applications to consider. The total expenditure approved by the Board was €1.008 billion, including some €847 million in respect of awards and some €161 million in associated medical/legal costs. The overall average award is €62,875.

623 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.]

A total of 139 institutions were included in the schedule of specified institutions to the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002 to 2005. Religious ethos was not a criterion for inclusion in the Schedule. While the majority of these institutions were managed by the 18 religious congregations who were party to the 2002 Indemnity Agreement, others were managed by State bodies, voluntary bodies/management committees or pursuant to Trusts. My Department does not have the application details sought by the Deputy. Indeed, section 28(6) of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 prohibits the publication of any information regarding an application made under the Act that refers to any other person, relevant person or institution by name or which could reasonably lead to such identification.

78. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount of moneys paid by the catholic religious orders to the State as their contribution to the redress scheme 2002; the amount of property transferred by the religious orders to the State; if the Protestant authorities have made any financial contribution to the State in the context of the redress scheme; the amount of moneys that the State has contributed to the redress scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16858/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The following table sets out the position in relation to the realisation of the €128 million contribution due from the eighteen Congregations under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement. The completion of the legal arrangements in the case of 24 properties, valued at €23.34 million, remain outstanding, although the physical transfers of these properties have taken place. The Chief State Solicitor’s Office continues to pursue the legal requirements issue under the Indemnity Agreement. In addition, a potential shortfall of €160,000 has been projected between the value of properties to be transferred and the total amounts due under the Agreement. However, this is subject to change if good and marketable title cannot be realised on certain properties and the final shortfall or surplus will not be known until all properties are completed under the terms of the Indem- nity Agreement. The final cost of the response to residential institutional abuse is estimated to reach €1.36 billion, with the bulk of these cost estimates, some €1.1 billion, relating to the Redress Scheme. At the end of 2010, the overall expenditure on the Redress Scheme and associated litigation was €1.05 billion. These costs are met by the State, apart from €42.26m, which is accounted for by the cash contribution from the religious congregations and associated interest. Following the publication of the Ryan Report, the congregations were called upon to commit to making further substantial contributions by way of reparation. In response 16 of the 18 congregations made offers of additional contributions including cash and properties, which they have valued at €348.51m. In April 2010, the then Government announced its intention to utilise the cash element of €110m of the congregations’ offers of contributions, to establish a Statutory Fund to support the needs of survivors of residential institutional child abuse. To date €20.6m has been received and placed in a special interest bearing account in the Central Bank pending the establishment of the Statutory Fund. The remaining congregations are awaiting confirmation that the legislation will provide for the charitable status of their contributions to the Fund or sight of the proposed terms and structure of the Fund, prior to making their initial contributions. The offers of contributions envisaged that the cash contributions would be made over a period of years. My Department has pursued the potential use of the various property offers made to date and their acceptability to the State and has engaged with the Congregations in relation to their potential to augment their offers, so as to realise a 50:50 sharing of the costs involved. As has been recognised, even if all of the properties offered were to be acceptable

624 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers to the State and their values confirmed there would be a shortfall of over €200 million below the 50:50 target set. Against this background the transfer of the congregations’ school infrastructure, at no extra cost to the State, as proposed in the Programme for Government, could help achieve the 50:50 target. The schools transferred will continue to be used by the religious congregations and or their successor trusts with the same patronage arrangements as prevail today. The difference would be that the Irish taxpayer, through the State, would be the owners of that educational infrastructure. My Department has also approached the management bodies of other institutions included within the Redress Scheme in relation to a contribution towards the costs involved.

Contributions by Religious Congregations Under the 2002 Indemnity Agreement

Sums Pledged Sums Realised Sums Outstanding

€m €m €m Cash — original 28.44 28.44 — adjustment 13.28 13.28 Property — original 76.86 40.08 23.501 — adjustment (13.28) Cash for Education Fund 12.7 12.7 Counselling and Support Services 10 10

Total 128 104.5 23.50 1 This includes the €160,000 potential shortfall projected between the value of the properties to be transferred and the total amounts due under the Agreement.

Special Educational Needs 79. Deputy Tony McLoughlin asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to stream- line access to learning resources (details supplied) in post primary schools; and the timeframe for same. [16866/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible for the provision of a range of educational services at local and national level for students with special educational needs. In particular, its network of Special Education Needs Organisers (SENOs) co-ordinates special needs education provision at local level and arranges for the delivery of special educational services. Each SENO works in an assigned local area with parents, schools, teachers, psychologists, health professionals and other staff who are involved in the provision of services in that area for children with special educational needs. They act as single points of contact for parents of students with special educational needs. All schools have the names and contact details of their local SENO. Parents may also contact their local SENO directly to discuss their child’s special educational needs, using the contact details available on www.ncse.ie. Some children with special educational needs may require health therapy services which are necessarily delivered by the Health Service Executive (HSE). In some instances such therapy services are delivered in schools. An integrated approach is adopted by the education and health sectors to target resources to the areas of greatest need and to integrate services to the greatest extent possible. Progress in this regard continues to be kept under review by the Office for Disability and Mental Health, and the cross sectoral team 625 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] (comprising of representatives of the Department of Education and Skills, Health and Children, the NCSE and the HSE.

School Transport 80. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Education and Skills if concessionary terms for fees can be applied in respect of a case (details supplied) in County Limerick. [16876/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Under the terms of my Department’s Primary School Transport Scheme, pupils who reside 3.2 kilometres or more from, and are attending, their nearest suitable national school as determined by my Department, are eligible for school transport. It is open to pupils who reside less than 3.2 kilometres from their nearest school, which applies in this case, to apply for concessionary fare-paying transport to the school which they are attending. Concessionary transport is offered subject to a number of terms and conditions, including the availability of spare seating on an existing service and the payment of the concessionary charge of €200 per child or a maximum family charge of €650.

School Accommodation 81. Deputy Pat Deering asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount of money that has been set aside by him for the 2011 additional accommodation scheme; and if he will provide a breakdown of the total spend so far in 2011. [16883/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The total allocation available in 2011 for the additional accommodation scheme (including commitments arising from approvals issued prior to 2011) amounts to €60 million. Expenditure so far this year amounts to €17.6 million

Schools Building Projects 82. Deputy Pat Deering asked the Minister for Education and Skills the amount of money that has been set aside by him for the 2011 major works programme; and if he will provide a breakdown of the total spend so far in 2011. [16884/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The total allocation available in 2011 for the provision of new schools and large scale extensions amounts to €211.5 million (includes commitments arising from projects that commenced architectural planning or construction prior to 2011). Expenditure so far this year amounts to €79.8 million

School Staffing 83. Deputy John Lyons asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will clarify the instructions that have been given to a board of management (details supplied) in Dublin 11 in relation to the recruitment of teachers; and if he would outline the reason for same. [16886/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The process of allocating teaching resources to schools for 2011/2012 and the arrangements for filling vacant or new teaching posts, including temporary posts, takes place in the context of the EU/IMF Programme of Support for Ireland and the Public Service Agreement 2010/2014. It is necessary for my Depart- ment to exercise additional control and reporting measures this year to ensure that the numbers of teachers employed in schools is consistent with the EU/IMF Programme of Support for Ireland.

626 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

This requires that all permanent and fixed term positions including the developing post allocated to the school referred to by the Deputy are in the first instance made available to those surplus teachers with either permanent contracts or contracts of indefinite duration. The purpose of these changes is to ensure all surplus teachers are absorbed into vacancies that exist in other schools. Flexible redeployment arrangements are required in order to ensure all surplus permanent teachers are redeployed into vacancies. The country simply cannot afford to have surplus teachers in a school while permitting recruitment to take place in another school. It is the intention of the Department to restore recruitment from fixed-term teachers on the main panels, supplementary panels or public advertisement at the earliest possible opportunity, after all the surplus permanent teachers have been redeployed.

Schools Refurbishment 84. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will review a decision on an application for the emergency works scheme by a school (details supplied) in County Cork in view of the fact that the works involved were referred to in an asbestos register compiled by the Office of Public Works in 2003 and that the material involved has deteriorated substantially since then; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16911/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): An application under my Depart- ment’s Emergency Works Scheme to replace the school’s floor covering has been received from the school referred to by the Deputy. The purpose of the Emergency Works Scheme is solely for unforeseen emergencies or to provide funding to facilitate inclusion and access for special needs pupils. An emergency is deemed to be a situation which poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or the environment which is sudden, unforeseen and requires immediate action and in the case of a school if not corrected would prevent the school or part thereof from opening. As the scope of works for this project is outside the terms of the Emergency Works Scheme it cannot be considered for emergency funding. The school has been informed of the decision.

Schools Building Projects 85. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding a school building project in respect of a school (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16913/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A planning application for the school building project to which the Deputy refers, was recently lodged on behalf of the Depart- ment. Subject to receipt of the necessary statutory approvals, and assuming no issues arise, it is intended to progress the project to construction.

School Curriculum 86. Deputy Robert Dowds asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to introduce a leaving certificate course on political science, philosophy, ethics or social studies or any combination of these subjects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16922/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Civic, social and political education is a mandatory part of the Junior Certificate programme and is supported by resources and professional development for teachers. It includes a key focus on the concepts of democracy, human dignity, rights and responsibilities, law, development, interdependence and stewardship. A syllabus for Politics and Society as a new subject in the Leaving Certificate was submitted

627 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] to my Department by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in May 2011. The implementation issues are being examined at present in the context of overall system priorities and resources. Social, personal and health education (SPHE) is also a mandatory subject in junior cycle, and includes a strong focus on personal development, social skills, relationships and sexuality education, decision-making, healthy lifestyles and promoting positive mental health. A curriculum framework for SPHE as a senior cycle subject was submitted by the NCCA to my Depart- ment in mid 2008. However, the Department is not in a position to proceed with implementation in the current budgetary climate. The priority in this area is to continue to enhance the implementation of SPHE at junior cycle and to ensure that all schools implement the Relation- ships and Sexuality Education programme which is already required in senior cycle. Social Studies is also an integral part of the Home Economics (Social and Scientific) syllabus in junior and senior cycle.

Third Level Fees 87. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Education and Skills if funding will be provided through any agency under his remit to permit a person (details supplied) in County Kildare to complete a designated course; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16930/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Under my Department’s free fees scheme and student grant schemes, eligible students may receive funding provided they are attending an approved course at an approved institution as defined in the relevant scheme. I understand that the college referred to by the Deputy is a private college and is not on the list of approved institutions. However, my Department has been in touch with FÁS about this case and I understand that arrangements have been agreed for the person in question to meet with a FÁS Employment Services Officer on Wednesday June 22nd to discuss technical employment support (TESG) funding for the course referred to by the Deputy. It should also be noted that Section 473A of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, as amended by Section 11 of the Finance Act 2011 provides for tax relief for fees paid in publicly funded colleges here and in other EU Member States as well as in private colleges in the State. Further details on claiming this relief are available from the Revenue Commissioners’ website at www.revenue.ie.

Ministerial Correspondence 88. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has received correspondence from a person (details supplied) regarding payment for public relations work carried out by their company on behalf of the Dell Redundant Workers’ Association with regard to the European globalisation adjustment fund; and when he intends to make this payment. [16959/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): My Department has received correspondence from the legal representatives of the person named in respect of public relations work undertaken under contract to the Dell Redundant Workers Association (DRWA), and in relation to amounts owing thereby. The contract for public relations work was entered into by the person concerned with the DRWA and not with this Department. This Department were not party to the contract and therefore no liability arises in relation to any outstanding fees.

628 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

On 14 June 2011 my Department informed the legal representatives of the person concerned of the position as outlined above.

Employment Support Services 89. Deputy Willie O’Dea asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has received representation from the Dell Redundant Workers’ Association containing proposals (details supplied); the reason the he is not willing to accept these proposals; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the European Globalisation Fund implementation was delayed for 13 months as a result of which EGF clients had only 11 months to avail of funding; in view of this if he will reconsider its approval. [16967/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): I have received and will reply shortly to further representations from the Dell Redundant Workers Association (DRWA) in relation to the European Globalisation Fund (EGF). The measures and supports being provided under the Dell EGF programme are available to all eligible persons encompassed by the programme, and not just to those persons engaged in FÁS programmes. The measures and supports were based on the inputs provided by a range of service providers and include occupational guidance, training and upskilling, educational and enterprise supports. By the end of March 2011, some 2,500 beneficiaries had been provided with guidance, training and upskilling, educational and enterprise supports under the Dell EGF programme. In Ireland, significant mobility allowance payments and the purchase of computer equipment are not part of the domestically-funded supports provided to unemployed persons either attending private courses funded through FÁS or attending publicly-funded education courses. Similarly, job search allowances are not part of the domestically-funded supports provided to unemployed persons. As such, a decision was taken by the former Minister for Education and Skills not to include measures of these types were not included in the EGF application. It is not therefore possible at this time to provide for the retrospective purchase of computer equipment outside the terms of the Back to Education Allowance Cost of Education scheme, the scheme designed by FÁS for those persons availing of the EGF HETAC training grant to pursue courses in private colleges. This scheme permits an annual grant of up to €5,000 in total inclusive of course fees, books and equipment subject to meeting the requirements of the scheme. Higher Education Authority guidelines for publicly-funded third level institutions where the equipment is specified in the official course literature and course leaders verify that the item is essential for participation in the course. In relation to mobility allowances, no current Irish EGF programme provides for such payments outside existing national procedures. Any EGF-eligible former Dell or ancillary enterprise worker who incurs costs in getting to and from further training or approved education programmes will be considered for reimbursement in accordance with current FÁS procedures. The estimated costs of enterprise supports to be provided by City and County Enterprise Boards (CEBs) in the Mid-West region to eligible persons under the Dell EGF programme as set out on the EGF application amounted to €1.1m. To date, my Department has provided overall funding to those CEBs to the value of €3.557m, of which the national 35% element is €1.25m. The CEBs in turn have paid out €3.045m in supports for some 226 EGF beneficiaries. It is estimated that most if not all potential business start-ups will have received significant support prior to the EGF end-date of 28 June. All relevant EGF measures and supports must under the relevant European Commission decision end on 28th June 2011. I understand that CEBs will not be providing national funds beyond 28 June 2011 to fund CEB supports currently being EGF co-funded.

629 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ciarán Cannon.]

Occupational guidance was provided to former Dell workers on site at the Dell facility in Raheen from 3 February 2009, four months before the EGF application was submitted. I would point out that training, educational and enterprise supports were provided without any significant delay as workers became redundant later in 2009 and 2010, and services were ramped up accordingly in line with increasing user demand and participation.

FÁS Training Programmes 90. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Education and Skills the steps that can be taken to complete an apprenticeship in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Galway. [16972/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): My Department has contacted FÁS about this case. I understand from FÁS that the person in question has to-date completed six of the required seven phases of the Standards Based Apprenticeship Programme in the trade of Plasterer. He completed Phase 6 of his Apprentice- ship in the Athlone Institute of Technology from 4th January, 2010 to 12th March, 2010 but did not complete Phase 7 or the associated assessments. In order to qualify for the FETAC Advanced Certificate Craft, it is a requirement that all seven phases of the apprenticeship are successfully completed and that all the associated assessments have been passed. It is also a requirement of the Standards Based Apprenticeship that the required four years have been completed (i.e. 208 weeks) in paid insurable employment with an approved employer in the trade. FÁS has introduced a number of initiatives to assist Redundant Apprentices to complete their apprenticeship:

• Redundant Apprentice Placement Scheme

• Recognition of Prior Learning

• Phase 7 Equivalent Assessment Programme (mandatory to apply for recognition of prior learning)

• Other FÁS Courses relevant to the trade which may be included for consideration as part of an Application for Prior Leaning.

I understand that the person was contacted by FÁS on 4th April, 2011 to establish if he wished to participate in the Redundant Apprentice Placement Programme but that he declined the offer. I also understand that the Phase 7 Assessments must be conducted in this jurisdiction in order to gain the Irish Qualification for Tradespersons i.e. FETAC Advanced Certificate Craft. Once this has been completed, the person may make an application under Recognition of Prior Learning for recognition of any relevant and verifiable work experience relating to his trade.

County and City Enterprise Boards 91. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans for the future of county enterprise boards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16878/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The issue of restructuring the County and City Enterprise Boards has been in the public domain since the publication of the McCarthy Group Report under the last Administration. It is both timely and

630 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers appropriate to re-structure, and re-focus, how the State delivers its support to the indigenous micro-enterprise sector as, after all, this sector will be vital to job creation and to overall economic recovery in Ireland. However, within this context, it is vital to ensure that any restructuring does not compromise on service delivery to the end user and that it is vital to ensure that State support for enterprise and job creation activities is delivered in a coherent, effective and efficient manner. Both I, and my officials, are currently seeking to determine the extent to which there should be restructuring of the County and City Enterprise Boards having regard to the programme for Government, and to other recommendations on CEB restructuring, to the need to achieve a rational and focused model for entrepreneurs, as well as the need to ensure that there is targeted local delivery of enterprise support, driven by a national enterprise policy, in a manner which eliminates overlap and duplication.

Legislative Provisions 92. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if in accordance with the Factories Act 1955, section 84, Ireland’s Magdalene laundries were considered factories and, as such, were subject to the conditions laid out in that legislation; if his position reflects the statement made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, William Norton, in Seanad Éireann on 5 May 1955 that “once you wash clothes in the institution, not for the institution, then that is a factory. In other words, you have a right to wash clothes for the institution, but if you start to wash other people’s clothes it is a factory, for the purpose of section 84”; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16904/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Section 84 of the Factories Act 1955 reads as follows: -

84. —(1) Where, in any premises forming part of an institution carried on for charitable or reformatory purposes, any manual labour is exercised in or incidental to the making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, washing, cleaning, or adapting for sale, of articles not intended for the use of the institution, but the premises do not constitute a factory, then, nevertheless, the provisions of this Act shall, subject as hereinafter in this section provided, apply to those premises.

(2) This Act shall not, except in so far as the Minister may by order direct, apply to any premises which do not constitute a factory if the premises are subject to inspection by or under the authority of any Minister of State.

Subsection (1) is clearly addressed at premises or workplaces which do not constitute a factory. It does provide that certain types of institution may, despite the fact that they “do not constitute a factory”, be subject to the provisions of the Act. However, Subsection (2) qualifies this by providing that the Act shall not apply to such institutions if they “are subject to inspection by or under the authority of any Minister of State”. The mere fact that the State has a right to inspect particular premises does not mean that it has an obligation to do so — there neither was nor is any obligation on the State to inspect every workplace. As the Deputy will be aware, the Government decided last week to establish an interdepartmental committee chaired by an independent person to establish the full extent of State involvement in relation to the Magdalen Laundries. Along with his colleague, the Minister of State for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence is now following up on this decision with the relevant parties.

631 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

Given the generally acknowledged lack of information about the type of institution mentioned by the Deputy, I do not consider it appropriate, at this juncture, to comment on the possible application of the 1950s code of occupational health and safety to particular institutions.

Departmental Expenditure 93. Deputy Peter Mathews asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation further to Parliamentary Question No. 170 of 19 January 2010, if he will provide the most recently available data in tabular form; if he will give details of the number of invoices paid each year by Departments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16905/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The reply to PQ No. 170 of 19 January 2010, included data in tabular format on payments made within 15 days by central Government Departments covering the period 15 June 2009 — 30 September 2009. In the interim period, my Department has published on its website a further six sets of quarterly returns and these can be accessed on the Department’s website at the following link: http://www.djei.ie/enterprise/smes/publications.htm. The most recent sets of returns covering the period 1 January — 31 March 2011 (Quarter 1, 2011), were published on 30 May 2011 and follow in tabular form. These returns show that:

• A total of 47,227 payments were made within 30 days by Departments in the above period amounting to €608m;

• 41,527 payments totalling €593m were paid within 15 days. These payments represent 88% of the total number of payments made by Departments;

• In value terms, 97.5% were paid within 15 days compared with 98% for Quarter 4 2010 figures;

• A further 5,700 payments or 12% were made between 16 and 30 days;

• 12 Departments were paying in excess of 90% of invoices by value within 15 days;

• The other three Departments were paying in excess of 65% of invoices by value within 15 days and

• All 15 Departments had paid between 93% and 100% of their invoices within 30 days, in respect of the number of invoices received.

Clearly central Government Departments are making their contribution to assisting the cash flow of their business suppliers. It is now the turn of the broader public sector to match this lead and play its part in assisting SME suppliers. Government is now extending the 15 day prompt payment rule beyond central Government Departments to include the Health Service Executive, the Local Authorities, State Agencies, and all other Public Sector Bodies, (with the exception of the Commercial Semi-State bodies). The new arrangement will apply in respect of valid invoices received on, or after, 1 July 2011.

632 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers 1,819,341 87% 672 1,180,8384,734,210 98%1,914,516 720 93%8,743,114 1,219 86% 87% 425 729 7,928,702 89% 1,003 59,663,25515,152,665 85% 96% 1,928 89,286,259 1,895 33,988,98812,695,50632,366,552 94% 87% 79% 12,526 86% 7,066 3,840 11,704 € € € € € € 168,186,438 73% 2,281 111,522,897 70% 3,167 € € € € € € € € 1,172,808,027 98% 4,891 1,721,991,308 54,066 € € March 2011 Quarter 4: October-December 2010 — 764,214 57% 399 90% € 1,005,801 100%1,372,6989,145,5571,353,576 685 93% 95%3,770,166 94% 89% 800 1,3372,821,515 84% 96% 369 96% 457 88% 87% 1,318,114 95% 2,788 91% 88% 745 94% 17,065,593 80%58,866,149 1,30433,902,63524,347,415 77% 98% 20,460,971 91% 2,875 88% 9,179 98% 78% 5,738 88% 8,645 87% 82% € € € € € € € 299,920,999 98%117,224,536 3,166 83% 100% 3,040 97% 593,339,939 41,527 € € € € € € € € Quarter 1: January PROMPT PAYMENT RETURNS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 2011 days days within 15 days days within 15 days days GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTS total value paid 15 days Payments Payments total value within 15 within 15 15 days paidGaeltacht Affairs Payments Payments within 15 within 15 Innovation and Local Gov Food Sport and Nat Resources TABLE 1:Health and Children %Transport of overallEnterprise, Value Trade of and Payments within 100% Finance % No. ofForeign Affairs 96% Social Protection No. ofTaoiseach 100% Education and % Skills of overallTourism, Culture Value and of Payments within 96% 96% Defence % 96% No. ofJustice 95% & Law Reform 95% Environment, Heritage 96% No. of Agriculture, Fisheries & 93% 92% Community, Equality and 82% 94% Communications, Energy 69% Total 65%

633 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] December 2010 — 4,930,4061,252,482 97%1,985,066 100%9,176,993 1,270 731 98% 98% 481 8,245,772 821 96%2,017,359 1,083 99% 769 15,717,48739,030,682 100% 98% 1,966 60,463,114 7,985 14,238,448 96% 96%39,502,297 2,194 4,678 98% 13,463 € € € € € € 171,516,754 96%113,994,763 2,991 91% 4,137 101,054,950 98% 13,142 € € € € € € € € 1,173,073,556 100% 4,955 € March 2011 Quarter 4: October — Quarter 1: January PROMPT PAYMENT RETURNS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 2011 paid days days paid days days days days within 30 within 30 Sport and Natural Resources Gaeltacht Affairs GOVERNMENTDEPARTMENTS total overall value 30 days Payments Payments within 30 overall within 30 total value 30 days Payments Payments within 30 within 30 Innovation and Local Government Food TABLE 2:Education and % Skills Value ofFinance Value of PaymentsForeign within AffairsHealth and % Children No. 100% ofJustice & Law ReformSocial Protection No. ofTaoiseach 100% 100%Tourism, 100% Culture and % 62,036,007 100% Value ofTransport Value of Payments 100% withinEnterprise, Trade and 100% % No. of 1,006,134 9,546,325 25,952,008Environment, 98% Heritage 100% 1,423,845 No.Communications, 99% of 121,127,933 Marine 99% 3,663 100% 3,944,509Defence 100% 99% 98% 98% 100%Agriculture, Fisheries & 1,401,052 97% 17,618,554 99% Community, Equality 686 and 1,393 6,379 98% 92% 300,000,183 3,026,726 854Total 3,571 97% 1,997,039 99% 100% 99% 99% 97% 100% 97% 531 100% 100% 98% 23,057,294 409 96% 1,568 1,069,161 100% 3,212 3,134 35,197,405 100% 94% 90% 788 100% 93% 99% 10,495 98% 97% 649 100% 9,895 608,404,175 100% 99% 47,227 1,756,200,129 60,666

634 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Jobs Initiative 94. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to introduce a partial loan guarantee scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16946/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): As part of the Jobs Initiative announced in this House on, 10 May, both the Minister for Finance and I confirmed the Government commitment to initiating a tendering process for the development of a temporary partial credit guarantee scheme. A call for competition for the design of a scheme was published on e-tenders on 15 June. The design of the scheme will draw from international experience to support new lending that would not otherwise have been extended by the banks. In this way, the scheme will be limited in its scope and will complement, rather than be a substitute for, existing lending activities by the main financial institutions. It will be designed to encourage banks to lend to these new or expanding commercially viable SMEs so that they can grow their company, develop new products or expand into new markets. The Government’s commitment will be for an initial period of one year. Specific performance criteria will be set down that allow for review and revision of the scheme at the end of that initial period before committing to a roll-over of the scheme for subsequent years. It is intended that the Scheme will be in place in the autumn.

International Agreements 95. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation his plans to ratify the International Labour Organisation convention on domestic workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16952/11]

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I welcome the recent successful outcome of discussions at the International Labour Conference (ILC) that lead to the adoption of a new International labour standard aimed at ensuring Decent Work for Domestic Workers. This outcome was achieved following extensive negotiations on the draft text of an instrument over a three-week period on which work commenced at the 2010 session of the ILC. I am pleased to advise the Deputy that the final text of the draft Convention was one that the Irish Government was in a position to support and the Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers now becomes ILO Convention No. 189 supplemented by a Recommend- ation. The Convention was adopted by a sizeable majority of ILO members at the plenary session of Conference just a week ago. Ratification of the Convention by ILO member countries would commit members to respect, promote and realise the labour standards and principles inherent in the Convention. It is now a matter for ILO members individually, to consider ratification to the maximum extent in order for this instrument to receive widespread and universal application as a global standard. The issue of ratification by Ireland of this Convention will be considered in the context of our standard approach to the ratification of international instruments. In this regard, the Con- vention will need to be examined from the perspective of any changes that may be required to existing domestic legislation. This will involve careful examination of the provisions of the Convention as well as obtaining any legal advice that might be necessary. Issues around implementation and enforcement of the Convention will also need to be considered.

635 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.]

In the meantime, it is important to point to the fact that the full suite of employment rights legislation, including that of redress for violations of employment rights, that apply to employees generally in Ireland apply equally in the case of domestic workers.

Job Creation 96. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Social Protection if Members of the Oireachtas will be able to hire interns under the national internship scheme. [16854/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): In order to offer an internship opportunity under the national internship scheme, host organisations must be legal entities. This criterion is in place to prevent possible abuses of the scheme such as displacement and dead- weight and to ensure that interns receive a quality internship. Members of the Oireachtas will, therefore, be ineligible to participate in the national internship scheme as they are not legal entities.

Departmental Schemes 97. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Social Protection the support mechanisms available for persons whose employment is seasonal or sporadic; her plans to look at the circumstances of persons working in the arts whose income is intermittent but who have child care, education, mortgage and other daily commitments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16862/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): There are no specific schemes in the Department that are targeted at those in the Arts nor are there any plans to introduce such a scheme. However there are a number of measures that are applicable, on a non-sectoral specific basis, to a range of unemployed, or underemployed workers, along with those who pursue self- employment but receive low income from same. Unemployed persons may qualify for jobseeker’s benefit or jobseeker’s allowance. Job- seeker’s benefit is based on a person’s social insurance record and jobseeker’s allowance is based on weekly means. A fundamental qualifying condition for the benefit is that a person must be available and looking for full-time work but payment can be made to those in part- time, casual or seasonal work having regard to these conditions. Artists are generally adjudged to be self-employed workers, liable for PRSI at the Class S rate of 4%. They are consequently eligible for a narrower range of benefits than general employees who, together with their employers, pay a total social insurance contribution of 14.75%, excluding levies, under the full-rate PRSI Class A. Self-employed workers are not insured against short-term benefits such as illness and jobseeker’s payments — these are only available to persons covered by PRSI Classes A, E, H and P. This reflects the need for coverage for various contingencies, the rate of contributions that self-employed persons pay, the practicalities of administering and controlling access to short- term payments and the annualised system of contributions that these people enjoy. A system of separate arrangements for employed and self-employed workers within a social insurance context is common in other European social protection systems. There are no plans at present to extend cover for short-term benefits to this group of insured workers. Any such measure would have significant financial implications and would have to be considered within a budgetary context. Consideration would also have to be given to an appropriate increase in the rate of the PRSI Class S contribution.

636 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Self-employed workers who do not qualify for an insurance-based benefit may establish entitlement to assistance-based payments such as jobseeker’s allowance. They can apply for the means-tested jobseekers allowance if their business ceases or if they are on low income as a result of a downturn in demand for their services. In general their means will take account of the level of earnings in the last twelve months in determining their expected income for the following year. If the means test is satisfied they can receive a payment and continue to pursue their self-employed activities. In the current climate account is taken of the downward trend in the economy. It is accepted that future earnings may be lower than those of previous years and this is factored in projecting future earnings, with account being taken of the potential for significant upward or downward variations in income from one year to the next. In common with those from other sectors, people in receipt of jobseekers payments may be entitled to access back-to-work enterprise allowance. This is a scheme which facilitates those who wish to either, become self-employed, or increase the level of their self-employment. Under the scheme a self-employed person retains 100% of social welfare payment for the first year and 75% for the second year and secondary benefits received are retained as appropriate. There are also small grants potentially available to support the establishment of the enterprise. Further, individually-specific, information is available from the network of Facilitators that are based in the Department’s Local Offices.

Social Welfare Appeals 98. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the decision to refuse supplementary welfare allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16863/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive (HSE) has advised that the person concerned has appealed the decision to refuse supplementary welfare allowance to the HSE’s designated Appeals Officer. The person concerned will be notified of the outcome in due course. Questions Nos. 99 and 100 withdrawn.

Social Welfare Benefits 101. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the procedure to be followed to transfer from jobseeker’s allowance to disability allowance in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16872/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned was in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance until 10 May 2011. His claim was closed on 6 May 2011 as he submitted an application for Illness Benefit (IB) with effect from 21 April 2011. His IB claim is under consideration. In order to apply for Disability Allowance (DA) it is necessary to complete the relevant application form DA1. This should be certified by a GP and forwarded to Disability Allowance Section, Social Welfare Services, Government Buildings, Ballinalee Road, Longford. To qualify for DA a person must satisfy a means test. A member of staff in Disability Allowance Section has issued an application form in the post to the person concerned, on 21 June 2011. This should be completed and forwarded to Disability Allowance Section for processing.

102. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason sufferers of fibromyalgia are not deemed eligible for invalidity pension as in the case of a person (details

637 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Bernard J. Durkan.] supplied); if she will arrange to have this case reviewed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16873/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Invalidity Pension is a payment for people who are permanently incapable of work because of illness or incapacity and who satisfy the contribution conditions. Medical eligibility for invalidity pension is not based on a set of prescribed illnesses. Rather, it is assessed on a case by case basis by a medical assessor of the department, based upon a GP report and other relevant medical evidence supplied by the claimant. On 9th May, 2011, the person concerned was refused invalidity pension on the grounds that she was not considered to be permanently incapable of work, and she has been notified of this decision. Further medical evidence was received which was reviewed on 30th May 2011. This review did not result in a revision of the decision and she was notified of this on 16th June 2011. She was also notified of her right to appeal this decision.

103. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection when an application for rent allowance will be determined in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16916/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive (HSE) has advised that the person concerned is in receipt of rent supplement of €135 per week which is the maximum amount payable appropriate to her circumstances after an overpayment deduction of €20 per week has been applied. The HSE further advised that the person concerned has appealed the overpayment deduction to the HSE Appeals Office but that no decision has been made on her appeal. The HSE Appeals Office will contact the person concerned directly when a decision has been made.

104. Deputy Paschal Donohoe asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to provide a discount to those on disability or invalidity benefits towards the cost of digital terrestrial television; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16919/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The national digital switchover strategy is a matter for the Department of Communications, Energy and National Resources. That Department is to deliver a substantial information campaign providing households with information on the digital switchover and on their options for going digital. I understand this information campaign will start in October. In conjunction with this, the Department of Communi- cations, Energy and National Resources is developing plans to ensure that a range of practical assistance is made available to address the particular needs of vulnerable households as they prepare to go digital. The Department of Social Protection provides a free television licence as part of the household benefits package. I have no plans to introduce a further element to the package to cover the cost of digital terrestrial television.

FÁS Training Programmes 105. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection if a person (details supplied) in County Kildare is entitled to apply for any training or community employment schemes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16926/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): FÁS Employment Services provide a fully integrated range of services and supports to employers and jobseekers nationally. Responsibility for FÁS employment services has been transferred to my Department whilst my

638 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, retains responsibility for policy in respect of training services. In order to avail of these services and identify any training or community employment scheme opportunities, jobseekers can register at any one of the 63 local FÁS Employment Service Offices across the county. The Employment Service Offices provide on-site career guidance and job placement services. FÁS also contracts with local development companies and community organisations for the delivery of the Local Employment Service (LES) which provides career guidance, support and advice on entitlements in a further 25 locations throughout the country. In addition, FÁS Employment Services and the LES are the gateway to all FÁS training and employment programmes. Further information is available from any one of the local FÁS Employment Service Offices nationwide or online at www.fas.ie. Local employment services in Kildare are available in Naas, Kildare Town, Leixlip and Athy.

Social Welfare Appeals 106. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue on an appeal against a disallowance of a carer’s allowance claim in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5 [16931/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that the appeal from the person concerned was referred to an Appeals Officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing in this case. There has been a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office since 2007 when the intake was 14,070 to 2010 when the intake rose to 32,432. This has significantly impacted on the processing time for appeals which require oral hearings and, in order to be fair to all appellants, they are dealt with in strict chronological order. In the context of dealing with the considerable number of appeals now on hand, the Department has made a further 9 additional appointments to the office in recent weeks. While every effort is being made to deal with the large numbers awaiting oral hearing as quickly as possible, it is not possible to give a date when the person’s oral hearing will be heard, but s/he will be informed when arrangements have been made. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protec- tion and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

107. Deputy Seán Kenny asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will request the chief appeals officer to review the disallowance of the jobseeker’s allowance claim in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 13 who was refused their request for an oral hearing in respect of which he has been advised he has a legal entitlement. [16932/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that an Appeals Officer, having fully considered all the evidence, disallowed the appeal of the person concerned by way of summary decision. Notification of the Appeals Officers decision was issued on 9th June 2011. Under Social Welfare legislation, the decision of the Appeals Officer is final and conclusive and may only be reviewed by the Appeals Officer in the light of new evidence or new facts. The legislation also provides that an Appeals Officer may decide a case before him/her on the basis of the documentary evidence. This course of action was taken in the case of the person concerned as it was considered that an oral hearing was not warranted. I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that no new evidence has been received to date in that Office to warrant a review of the case by the Appeals Officer. The Social

639 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Social Welfare Benefits 108. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will continue to pay child benefit for children who are 18 years but who have not yet sat their leaving certificate while the child continues to be a full time student at second level. [16935/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Child benefit is a universal payment that assists parents in the cost associated with raising children and it contributes towards alleviating child poverty. It is paid monthly in respect of all children up to the age of 16 years and in respect of children over 16 years of age up to their 18th birthday who are in full time education or have a disability. There are no plans for extending the upper age limit for child benefit at the present time. For families on low incomes there are a number of provisions to social welfare schemes which support children in full-time education until the age of 22, including:

• Qualified Child Increases to primary social welfare payments in receipt of either:

— A long-term social welfare payment, or

— A short-term social welfare payment for six months or more (short-term schemes include such payments as Jobseeker’s Benefit and Assistance, Illness Benefit and Supplementary Welfare Allowance).

• The family income supplement (FIS) scheme to low paid employees with families. This supplement is paid where a family’s weekly income is below a specified amount for the family size, and is calculated at 60% of the difference between the net family income (i.e. gross pay less tax, PRSI, USC, superannuation) and the relevant income limit.

• The back to school clothing and footwear allowance, which provides a one-off payment to eligible families to assist with the extra costs when children start school each autumn.

109. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason that persons (details supplied) in County Monaghan were refused rent supplement. [16949/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive (HSE) advised that the persons concerned inquired as to their possible entitlement for rent supplement in respect of their new address. The couple were informed that, based on their household income, they would qualify for a rent supplement of €0.80 (80 cent) per week. The HSE further advised that the persons concerned did not follow up this inquiry with a formal application for payment.

Social Welfare Appeals 110. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will issue on an application for disability allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [16974/11]

640 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that a disability allowance appeal by the person concerned was registered in that office on 22 November 2010. It is a statutory requirement of the appeals process that the relevant Departmental papers and comments by or on behalf of the Deciding Officer on the grounds of appeal be sought. These papers were received in the Social Welfare Appeals Office on 8 March 2011 and the appeal has been referred to an Appeals Officer who will decide whether the case can be decided on a summary basis or whether to list it for oral hearing. The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protec- tion and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Local Authority Charges 111. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will consider a waiver of the non-principal private residence tax for persons forced to migrate for work purposes due to the economic situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16874/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, which sets out the detail of the €200 charge on non-principal private residences, is structured with a starting position of a universal liability for residential property in respect of the charge. It goes on to exempt certain buildings and owners from this liability, the most important exemption being where a property is occupied by the owner as his or her sole or main residence on the liability date. A person who owns a property in this country which is not his or her main residence is liable for the charge unless otherwise exempt, regardless of which country he or she normally resides in. I have no plans at present to introduce a waiver scheme.

112. Deputy Patrick O’Donovan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will clarify his position regarding the imposition of water charges and commercial rates on community child care initiatives. [16963/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Commercial rates are local property taxes that are levied by local authorities on commercial properties rateable under the Valuation Act 2001. Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details entered on the valuation lists prepared by the independent Commissioner of Valuation. The determination of the annual rate on valuation, which is applied to property valuations to calculate rates, is a decision taken locally by the elected members of a local authority in their annual budget. With regard to the application of rates to childcare facilities, local authorities levy rates on commercial establishments. Where childcare provision is within a community facility, operating in a non-profit capacity, commercial rates do not generally apply. The Water Pricing Framework adopted in 1998 requires local authorities to recover the cost of providing water services from all non-domestic users of these services. The policy provides for full cost recovery without profit, with charges based on metered consumption.

Departmental Schemes 113. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local

641 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Brendan Griffin.] Government the position regarding the walks scheme; if he will reopen the scheme to new applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16845/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Walks Scheme is currently operating on 40 trails being managed by 14 Local Development Companies around the country. The Scheme involves 1,804 participant landholders who are contracted to carry out maintenance work on these trails. In 2011 payments to these landholders will amount to some €1.9m. In line with the commitments in the Programme for Government and the requirements of the Comprehensive Expenditure Review, all areas of work and programmes in my Department are being examined. The outcome of the Review will determine funding availability and decisions regarding the reopening of the Scheme.

Local Authority Charges 114. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the way he will determine the free water allowance to be granted to each household before such time as conservation charges are incurred. [16849/11]

117. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if persons with a long-term illness or disability will receive an extra allowance or waiver on charges for water usage, particularly when experiencing medical problems such as arthritis, the symptoms of which can be alleviated through the therapeutic use of water. [16906/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 114 and 117 together. The Programme for Government provides for the introduction of a fair funding model to deliver clean and reliable water. The objective is to install water meters in households and move to a charging system based on usage above a free allowance. My Department is currently preparing a strategy to implement these proposals, including the level of the free allowance and the potential impacts on vulnerable groups. Further details will be made available when the Government has considered the proposals.

Departmental Funding 115. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the reason funding was withdrawn from the Community Workers’ Co-operative; the assessment criteria employed and the aspects in which the CWC was deficient; in view of the valuable work undertaken by this group in the most disadvantaged areas of society if he will consider the restoration of this support; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16856/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I refer to the reply to Question Nos. 237, 247, 248, 249, 250 and 259 of 21 June 2011 which sets out the position in this matter.

Local Authority Charges 116. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 139 of 16 June 2011, the local authorities currently offering the facility for businesses to pay their rates by direct debit; the local authorities that currently allow businesses to pay their rates in weekly and or monthly instal-

642 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers ments; the piece or pieces of legislation that provide for the collection of local authority rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16888/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): Local authority rates are legally payable in two moieties. However, local authorities also facilitate the payment of rates by instalments, including by direct debit, standing order, cheque and cash. The levying and collection of rates are matters for each individual local authority and this would include the arrangements for ratepayers in making payment by instalments. In this regard, ratepayers experiencing difficulty in the payment of rates should contact their rating authority in the matter. The law on the collection and levying of rates is contained in the statutory framework comprehending a number of pieces of legislation, as follows:

Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 Poor Relief (Ireland) Amendment Act 1843 Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1849 Valuation (Ireland) Act 1852 Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1862 Poor Law Acts (Ireland) Amendment Act 1890 Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 Local Government Collection of Rates Act 1924 Local Government (Dublin) Act 1930 Limerick City Management Act 1934 Waterford City Management Act 1939 Cork City Management (Amendment) Act 1941 Local Government Act 1941 Local Government Act 1946 Local Government Act 1955 Local Government (Rates) Act 1970 Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1978 Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1983 Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993 Local Government Act 1994 Valuation Act 2001

Question No. 117 answered with Question No. 114.

Environmental Protection 118. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to ensure that Cork City Council implements the noise action plan regarding the south city link road, N27; if funds have been ring-fenced for this purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16915/11]

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The Environmental Noise Regulations 2006 give effect in Ireland to EU Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. The Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) is designated as the National Authority for the purpose of the Regulations. The EPA’s role includes supervisory, advisory and coordination functions in relation to noise- mapping, action planning, and fulfilling reporting requirements. 643 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Phil Hogan.]

The Directive and Regulations provide for a two-stage approach to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Strategic noise maps for areas and infrastructure falling within defined criteria, including major roads, are first prepared by the relevant mapping authorities. Local authorities then prepare noise action plans for their functional areas based on the results of noise mapping. Both the noise maps and noise action plans are required to be reviewed at least every 5 years. The next reviews are scheduled for 2012 and 2013, respectively. My Department has been advised by the EPA that Cork City Council has submitted its finalised Noise Action Plan to the Agency. Assessment of progress made in relation to the implementation of the plan will be undertaken as part of the review due in 2013. Allocation of funding for the implementation of the noise action plan is a matter for Cork City Council.

Local Authority Housing 119. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the basis in legislation for a local authority imposing assessed rent arrears on a tenant who maintained up to date payments on the original rental contract with the local authority; if the differential rent system should produce documented revisions of rent assessments in the current recession and time of falling incomes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16953/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): Local authority rents are set in accordance with a rent scheme adopted by each local council. The making and amending of these rent schemes are an integral part of a housing authority’s housing management functions, subject to broad principles laid down by my Department in Circular letter HRT 3/2002 of 6 March 2002. Section 31 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 will replace, once commenced, existing provisions in relation to differential rent schemes. Regulations and guidelines for housing authorities in relation to differential rent are currently in preparation in my Depart- ment. While it is not the intention to implement a national standardised differential rent scheme, regulations later this year will more clearly set out the matters that may be included in a local rents scheme, including —

— the level, type and sources of household income that may be assessed for rent purposes;

— how dependents will be accounted for in calculating rent; and

— procedures for rent reviews.

Social and Affordable Housing 120. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the way he proposes to address the rehousing of the 19,880 persons and families on the Dublin City Council housing list; the way he proposes to address the rehousing of the thousands of persons and families on the Fingal housing list; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16954/11]

644 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers the foundation of a substantial reform programme, the new framework for housing policy responds to current and emerging conditions in the housing sector, taking account of the dra- matic cycle of rapid growth and sudden collapse in the residential property market. The centre- piece of the approach is to chart a way forward for housing policy in Ireland by placing greater emphasis on:

• choice;

• equity across housing tenures; and

• delivering quality outcomes for the resources invested.

In terms of the delivery of social housing, the policy statement clearly identifies that the main focus in terms of supports provided by Government will be on meeting the most acute needs — the housing support needs of those unable to provide for their accommodation from own resources. The financial parameters in which we will be operating for the coming years rule out a return to very large capital funded construction programmes by local authorities. Nevertheless, we are committed to responding more quickly and on a larger scale to social housing support needs through a variety of mechanisms including through increased provision of social housing. Delivery of social housing will be significantly facilitated through more flexible funding models such as RAS and leasing, but the Government is also committed to developing other funding mechanisms that will increase the supply of permanent new social housing. Such mechanisms will include options to purchase, build to lease, the sourcing of loan finance by approved housing bodies for construction and acquisition. There is also obvious potential, across a range of housing programmes, for the Government’s objective of sourcing and providing suitable residential units for use as social housing, to be aligned with the commercial objectives of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA).

Unfinished Housing Developments 121. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his timeframe for the occupation of the empty and unfinished homes in Dublin north east which number up to 1,500 units; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16955/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): There is clear potential to align demand for social housing with oversupply of suitable residential stock where it exists. The restructuring of the social housing investment programme to enable greater delivery through more flexible funding models such as RAS and leasing is key to this, in conjunction with other funding mechanisms to support the delivery of permanent new social housing. There is also potential, across a range of housing programmes, for the Government’s objective of sourcing and providing suitable residential units for use as social housing, to be aligned with the commercial objectives of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). My Department has been engaging with representatives of NAMA, and since coming into office I have also met with the Chairman and the CEO, to discuss options for securing a social dividend through the acquisition of suitable residential units for social housing purposes, while providing a return in line with NAMA’s mandate. I anticipate that this and other engagements will see the delivery of new social housing in the short term and I am progressing this agenda as a matter of urgency.

645 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Social and Affordable Housing 122. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if the recent statement of housing means there will be no more rental-buy or shared ownership arrangements for low income families to purchase a home; the number of such homes that were delivered nationally in the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16956/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): On 16 June I launched the Government’s new housing policy statement which will serve as a framework for a sequence of legislative and policy initiatives in the short to medium term. Based on a number of fundamental principles and goals that will form the foundation of a substantial reform programme, the new framework for housing policy responds to current and emerging conditions in the housing sector, taking account of the dra- matic cycle of rapid growth and sudden collapse in the residential property market. The centre- piece of the approach is to chart a way forward for housing policy in Ireland by placing greater emphasis on:

• choice;

• equity across housing tenures; and

• delivering quality outcomes for the resources invested.

The policy statement also formally announces the standing down of all affordable housing schemes, including shared ownership, in the context of a full review of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Affordable housing schemes were introduced to bridge the affordability gap that emerged during the boom years, preventing middle income households from realising their ownership aspirations. However, affordable housing did nothing to address the underlying problem — which is that the market was becoming overheated with an unsustainable chasm being created between prices and incomes. Affordable housing was therefore a symptom of a market failure and not a solution to it. In addition, affordability has eased to such an extent that there is little or no demand for affordable housing. Indeed, in recent years the challenge has been more of how to deploy existing affordable stock productively rather than deliver new affordable housing. The possibility of localised affordability challenges in the future, particularly in areas where supply is short and demand is likely to bounce back relatively quickly is not ruled out. Such affordable housing schemes that may be necessary in the future will have a broader tenure focus than in the past. The Government is committed to supporting access to home ownership for lower income households and a range of paths to home ownership will remain in place in that regard. These include the incremental purchase scheme, the availability of loan finance from local authorities for house purchase, including open market purchase, and the tenant purchase scheme. Information on the number of houses provided under the Shared Ownership Scheme is published in my Department’s Housing Statistics Bulletins, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library and on my Department’s website (www.environ.ie).

123. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the numbers of new build social housing units directly built and tenanted

646 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers by Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council from 2007 up to June 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16957/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): My Department collates and publishes a wide range of housing statistics that inform the preparation and evaluation of housing policy. The full range of data compiled can be viewed on my Department’s website, www.environ.ie, where data on Local Auth- ority completions, broken down by county and city, are displayed. Information on occupation of local authority units is provided on an annual basis. The most recent data published on this relates to 2009. I expect that 2010 data will be published shortly.

Garda Vetting of Personnel 124. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding the vetting system for those working with children (details supplied); the reason that this process is taking so long; and his plans to improve the system. [16850/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Garda Central Vetting Unit (GCVU) provides a centralised vetting service for all registered organisations nationwide. The organisation to which the Deputy refers is registered with the GCVU for employment vetting purposes. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that there have been no changes to the procedures in place for the processing of Garda vetting applications. The length of time currently being taken to process vetting applications is a matter of concern and I am determined to take action to address it. I recognise that it is important to process these applications within a reasonable time frame both for the benefit of the applicants and the organisations involved. A number of immediate measures are being taken to improve the situation. The sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained to retain the services of ten temporary employees in the GCVU. A further sanction has been obtained to engage an additional ten temporary employees for the Unit and the process of recruiting these is under way. This should have an impact on processing times. In addition, further steps are under consideration with a view to alleviating the pressure on the staff of the GCVU and to reduce the time taken for the processing of applications. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that at present there is a total of five Gardaí,76 full-time Garda civilian personnel and ten temporary civilian personnel assigned to the GCVU. This represents a very significant increase in the level of personnel assigned to the unit, which stood at only 13 before the current process of development in Garda vetting began in 2005. The average processing time for vetting applications fluctuates in line with periods of increased demand. In processing an individual vetting application, additional time may be required in cases where clarification is needed as to the details provided or where other enquiries need to be made, for example, when the person in question has lived and worked abroad. There will always be a reasonably significant time period required to process a vetting application. Registered organisations have been advised to take account of this in their recruitment and selection process. However, the Gardaí make every effort to reduce the time to the minimum possible consistent with carrying out what are very necessary checks. I am informed by the Garda Authorities that, at present, the average processing time for vetting applications received at the GCVU is approximately 10 weeks. The GCVU has managed a substantial increase over recent years in the numbers of vetting applications it receives from around 188,000 in 2007 to almost 292,000 in 2010. At present, there are approximately 55,000 applications in the course of being processed.

647 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Missing Persons 125. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to introduce the 116000 European hotline for missing children; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16851/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed that the telephone number to which the Deputy refers has been reserved by the European Commission as a common missing children telephone hotline for the entire EU. It is made available by national telecoms regulators to organisations they consider to be qualified to offer such a service. The allocation of the number in Ireland is therefore a matter in the first instance for the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. I am informed that ComReg has published an information note on its website which makes all relevant information available to potential applicants who may wish to provide the 116 000 service. It also issued on a number of occasions national press advertisements inviting applications, most recently on 20 June.

Gaming Licences 126. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to grant a gaming licence to the consortium which has received planning permission for a casino in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16861/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am not aware that an application has been made for a gaming licence in respect of the development to which the Deputy refers. However, should an application be made, it will be assessed in accordance with the relevant statutes, namely the Gaming and Lotteries Acts 1956-2003. Those Acts are based on the principle that only those gaming activities and establishments permitted by the Acts may be licensed. There is, therefore, a positive duty to comply with the legislation. Bearing that in mind and having regard also to the reports that it is proposed to include a casino in the development, I draw attention to section 4 of the 1956 Act. It makes it clear that casinos are not permitted and therefore they may not be licensed. The fact that a facility may have been granted planning permission does not alter that position in any way.

Citizenship Applications 127. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding an application for citizenship in the case of persons (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16871/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Valid applications for a certificate of naturalisation from the persons referred to in the Deputy’s Question were received in the Citizenship Division of my Department in November 2008. The application from the second named person is at the final stage of processing. Officials in the Citizenship Division inform me that a letter requesting further documentation was issued to the applicant on 14 June 2011. The application from the first named person is at an advanced stage of processing and will be finalised as expeditiously as possible. In that context, I can inform the Deputy that, I have announced steps within my Department to provide for speedier processing of applications to bring about a substantial reduction in the

648 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers processing timescale. The new arrangements include improved application forms that are coming into force this Friday, 24th June 2011, and are currently available online with an associated online residence checker, streamlined and accelerated procedures for certain types of application and plans to recruit interns under the new Internship Programme. Further details can be obtained from the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration website www.inis.gov.ie. The granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is a privilege and an honour which confers certain rights and entitlements not only within the State but also at European Union level and it is important that appropriate procedures are in place to preserve the integrity of the process. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual Immigration cases may be made direct to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Prison Accommodation 128. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of cells in each institution here; the number that accommodate two, three, four or more prisoners; and the current levels of overcrowding within each prison with reference to the safe levels of custody on each prison as identified by the Inspector of Prisons in his report, The Irish Prison Population — An examination of the duties and obligations owed to prisoners, from July 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16891/11]

132. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the total number of prison spaces currently available at each location throughout the country; the number of prisoners per cell at each location; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16896/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 128 and 132 together. The information requested by the Deputy is set out in the tables below. Table 1 sets out the total number of cells in each institution and is broken down into cells that can accommodate one, two, three and four or more prisoners. The table also includes the capped bed capacity as suggested by the Inspector of Prisons in the report referred to by the Deputy, along with the bed capacity and numbers in custody on Monday 20th June, 2011. Table 2 sets out the number of prisoners held in single, double, triple, quadruple and larger cells per institution. The numbers in prison at the moment do not allow all of the Inspector’s standards to be met in the short term. The problem of prison overcrowding remains a challenging issue. As of 22nd June 2011, there were 4,433 prisoners in custody. In 2000 that figure stood at 2919. 400 additional prisoner places will come on stream by mid 2012 and the Committee looking at Thornton are due to report by 1 July 2011. I am pursuing alternatives to custody. I would mention in particular the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill which will require judges to consider imposing Community Service in any case where the appropriate sentence would otherwise be a custodial one of up to 12 months imprisonment. I also have asked my officials to look at a scheme where suitable long term prisoners might have the last period of their custodial sentence replaced by a form of Community Service.

649 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] 20/06/2011 s Service Bed Custody ’ persons Report Capacity 20/06/2011 Table 1. Cells cells person cells for 4 or more cells per Inspector s 96 56 0 0 152 218 217 203 ’ Institution No. of Single No. of Double Number of 3 Number of Cells Total number of Bed Capacity Irish Prison Number in chas Centre 43 31 3 0 77 85 105 129 House** Institution ó Arbour HillCastlerea **CloverhillCorkD 84Limerick Male 85Limerick Female 49Loughan 72Midlands 14 13 26Mountjoy 107Portlaoise 20Shelton Abbey** 68St. Patrick 109 295 102 10 265Training 0 Unit 35 0 154Wheatfield 84* The 38 capping of** the It bed should capacity be 113 suggested noted by that 0 75 the some 29 Inspector prisons/place 122 was of 0 prior detentions to have the dormitory 211 5 opening style 6 of accommodation 53 the such 4 new as block the at Grove the in prison. Castlerea 29 Prison and Open Centres. 0 3 21 0 10 0 238 115 0 196 0 3 182 4 16 181 144 0 10 131 24 300 0 10 0 446 110 427 185 146 407 148 0 351 10 0 51 210 431 160 477 290 272 540 152 Not 371 96 reported 34 449 110 457 160 359 616 293 305 590 N/A* 96 35 110 113 269 592 583 700 127 99 683 119

650 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers 2900 8300 0080 6900 4000 2000 Table 2. held in single held in double held in triple held in quadruple held in larger occupancy cells occupancy cells occupancy cells occupancy cells occupancy cells s21791112000 ’ Institution Current Bed Capacity Number of prisoners Number of prisoners Number of prisoners Number of prisoners Number of prisoners chas Centre 105 43 62 14 0 0 ó Arbour HillCastlereaCloverhillCorkD Limerick MaleLimerick Female 148Loughan House 351Midlands 431MountjoyPortlaoise 290Shelton 272 Abbey 34St. Patrick 160 85Training UnitWheatfield 88 616 49 590 110 359 72 13 14 55 127 52 178 700 295 40 265 154 35 21 204 1 5 75 0 211 39 226 252 244 10 12 87 4 15 47 12 116 9 30 0 0 0 52 16 0 20 20 0 0 32 32

651 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

Organised Crime 129. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the total number of cases in respect of which proceedings are currently under way against criminal gangs or members thereof; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16893/11]

130. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of known members of criminal gangs currently active throughout the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16894/11]

131. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of prosecutions taken against members of criminal gangs in each of the past four years to date in 2011; the number that were successful; the number that were unsuccessful; the number pending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16895/11]

135. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons or gangs currently deemed to be involved in drug or people trafficking; the extent to which action has been taken such as prosecution and sentence in each of the past five years to date in 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16899/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 129 to 131, inclusive, and 135 together. I am informed by the Garda authorities that there are two categories of organised crime groups operating in this jurisdiction. The first category consists of individuals/groups that are well established and tightly structured involved in drug trafficking, armed robbery, firearms offences and other offences with international connections. The second category involves groups whose activities are characterised by less cohesive group structures and criminal activities which are mainly confined to Ireland. The Deputy will appreciate that membership of organised crime gangs tends to be fluid and the nature of criminal activity such, that offences committed by members of criminal gangs may or may not be connected with an individual’s membership of such gangs. It is therefore not feasible to give reliable figures for the information sought by the Deputy. However, figures are available with regard to the number of arrests and charges which have been made in connection with the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 dealing with organised crime. Since the enactment of that legislation on 23 July 2009, up to and including 31 May, 2011, I am advised by the Garda authorities that the provisions of the Act have been used on 127 occasions where arrests have been made relating to organised crime. To date, eight individuals have been charged under the legislation, six under section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 as inserted by section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (participating in organised crime) and two under section 71A of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 as inserted by section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (directing a criminal organisation). In addition, a number of investigation files are currently with the Law Officers awaiting directions. Furthermore, these arrests have also resulted in charges being preferred for a range of other offences and these cases are awaiting the submission of comprehensive investigation files to the Law Officers. As the Deputy will appreciate, given the serious nature of the offences dealt with under the 2009 Act, full, thorough and often complex investigations of suspected organised criminal activity is necessary and must be conducted before charges can be brought against any individ-

652 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers uals involved in such crime. I can assure the Deputy that tackling serious and organised crime and bringing those involved in such activities to justice is a key ongoing priority both for the Government and for An Garda Síochána.

Question No. 132 answered with Question No. 128.

Prison Education Service 133. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which rehabilitative, educational, psychological or other training is available for prisoners at all locations throughout the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16897/11]

134. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent to which short-term prisoners serving sentences for minor crimes are able to access rehabilitative training and support while in prison; the extent to which such services remain available on their release; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16898/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 133 and 134 together. I can advise the Deputy that the Irish Prison Service provides a range of rehabilitative programmes which have the dual purpose of providing prisoners with purposeful activity while serving their sentences and encouraging and equipping them to lead productive lives on release. Amongst these are health care, psychiatric, psychological, educational, work and training, vocational, counselling, welfare and spiritual services. These services are important in addressing offending behaviour, addiction, missed educational and vocational opportunities, anger management, and self management in the interest of encouraging positive personal development in prisoners, and preparing them for re-integration and resettlement on release from custody. Educational services are available at all institutions and are provided in partnership with a range of educational agencies in the community including the VECs, Public Library Services, colleges and the Arts Council. Literacy, numeracy and general basic education provision is the priority and broad programmes of education are made available which generally follow an adult education approach. During 2010 approximately 35% of the prison population attended classes. A significant expansion and development of vocational training programmes has taken place in recent years and there are now over 90 workshops in place in our prisons capable of catering for in excess of 800 prisoners each day. There was a significant increase in the number of prisoners who participated in accredited vocational training courses in 2010 when compared to the numbers recorded for 2009; 874 prisoners attended such courses last year, up from 376 who participated in 2009, an increase of 132%. The Psychology Service offers group and individual interventions to all prisoners. Group interventions include programmes on motivational enhancement, relapse prevention, anxiety management, dialectical behaviour therapy, stress management, enhanced thinking skills and anger control. A particular emphasis has been put on the development of programmes for prisoners convicted of sex offences and violent offences. Individual interventions comprise therapeutic work focusing on mental health care and offence-related issues, motivational counselling and crisis counselling. Significant progress is also being made in the development of programmes based on risk assessment and rehabilitation needs. Integrated Sentence Management System (ISM) is a prisoner-centred, multidisciplinary approach to working with prisoners with provision for initial assessment, goal setting and per- iodic review to measure progress. ISM is now in operation in twelve prisons. Since the com-

653 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] mencement of the pilot in the summer of 2008, approximately 2,200 prisoners have been offered participation in ISM and approximately 1,700 were participating at the end of May 2011. The full range of services is available to all prisoners, although prisoners on shorter sentences may not be able to complete the full range of course-work and programmes. Staff working in prisons have a wealth of experience in tailoring programmes to suit both short term and long term prisoners. In all cases, services endeavour to provide as complete a regime as possible within the time available. The Probation Service has an active role in helping prisoners to maintain links with family and community agencies, encouraging prisoners to address their offending behaviour and engaging prisoners in individual counselling and group counselling programmes such as offending behaviour, addiction, violence and sex offending. Question No. 135 answered with Question No. 129.

Crime Levels 136. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons charged with anti-social behaviour in each Garda division and subdivision throughout the country in each of the past five years to date in 2011; the nature or extent of the penalty applied in general; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16900/11]

137. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the total number of incidents of alleged anti-social behaviour lodged at each Garda station throughout the country in each of the past five years to date in 2011; the extent to which prosecution took place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16901/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I propose to take Questions Nos. 136 and 137 together. Following the submission in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, it was decided that the compilation and publication of crime statistics should be taken over by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, from An Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 consequently makes provision for this and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. The CSO recorded crime statistics, which are published quarterly and annually, provide figures on offences recorded by An Garda Síochána, including incidences of anti-social behaviour such as public disorder and criminal damage. Following the setting up of the necessary technical systems and auditing of the data from which the statistics are compiled, the CSO is now compiling, publishing and responding to queries regarding recorded crime statistics. I have requested the CSO to provide statistics directly to the Deputy. Incidents of public disorder and anti-social behaviour reported to the Garda authorities are the subject of investigation and dealt with appropriately, including by juvenile or adult caution, fixed charge penalty notices or initiating criminal proceedings. Any persons found engaging in such behaviour will be dealt with appropriately in accordance the law.

Courts Service 138. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the extent, if any, to which changes are required to address any backlog in the courts system; if there are particular areas identified as being in need of specific attention in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16902/11]

654 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The management and administration of the courts, as the Deputy will be aware, is a matter for the Courts Service. The allocation of the business of the courts, scheduling of court cases and the management of court lists are matters for the judiciary and the Presidents of the courts. The Deputy will also be aware that judges are, subject to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions. I am informed that the judiciary monitor waiting times and backlogs of court cases on an ongoing basis to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum. Measures introduced by the Pres- ident of the High Court have resulted in marked improvements with many cases now receiving trial dates within a single legal term. Additional judges are frequently assigned to Circuits and to Districts to assist with the disposal of cases where backlogs have arisen. The Courts Service works with the judiciary to ensure that all cases are dealt with and disposed of as speedily as possible. Notwithstanding this I intend to take action, within my area of responsibility as Minister, to seek to address particular problems as they arise. For example, following a judgment last year of the European Court of Human Rights I recently established an Expert Group under the chair of Mr Paul McDermott, SC to consider, inter alia, how delays might be alleviated. As the Deputy will be aware, an area of particular concern is the backlog at Supreme Court level which currently stands at 37 months. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to establish a court of appeal and in this regard my Department is further considering the report of the Working Group on a Court of Appeal chaired by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham.

Residency Permits 139. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will expedite an application for long-term residency in the case of a person (details supplied ) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16947/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I can confirm that the person concern has submitted an application for Long Term Residency. This application is one a number of applications which are awaiting a decision at present. However, I can assure the Deputy that, assuming that all necessary documentation and information has been submitted and all is found to be in order, there will be no avoidable delay in having this application processed to finality. Once a decision has been made on this application, this decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by Email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Visa Applications 140. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding an application of a person (details supplied) to come to their family in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16958/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Based on the information supplied by the Deputy, I am informed by officials in my Department that they can find no record of a current visa application for the person referred to.

655 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

When completing an on-line visa application the applicant is assigned a unique visa transaction number. This detail must be provided where a query on the status of a visa application arises. The provision of this unique visa transaction number ensures that accurate and up to date information is provided to the authorised enquirer. If the Deputy can provide the relevant detail I will ensure that officials in the Visa Office will make further enquiries and respond to the Deputy directly. Information regarding the visa application process is available on the website of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, www.inis.gov.ie. I should remind the Deputy that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by email using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been specifically established for this purpose. The service enables up-to-date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek this information through the more administra- tively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Garda Recruitment 141. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when he expects Garda training to recommence for recruits at Templemore training college, County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16976/11]

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): As the moratorium on Public Service Recruitment continues to apply to An Garda Síochána, no date has been fixed for future intakes into the Garda College or for the commencement of a recruitment competition. A decision on when recruitment will re-commence will take into account the rate of retirement in the Garda Síochána and Government targets for reductions in public service numbers.

Army Barracks 142. Deputy Ann Phelan asked the Minister for Defence his future plans for retaining the Army presence in Kilkenny; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16865/11]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter): Various commissions, reports and studies back to the 1990s identified barrack closure as a fundamental requirement towards improving military effectiveness and efficiency. The dispersal of Defence Forces personnel over an extended number of locations is a major impediment to essential collective training and the consolidation process is designed to facilitate higher training standards, while also freeing up under-utilised resources and personnel for operational duties. In addition, the funding realised from the disposal of surplus barracks and properties provides some of the resources required for infrastructure, training-area development and equipment procurement. The Defence property portfolio is kept under review to ensure the most effective use of military resources having regard to the roles assigned by Government to the Defence Forces. In that context the dispersal of personnel over an extended number of locations is a major impediment to effectiveness and also imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barrack management, administration, maintenance and security. The consolidation of the Defence Forces formations into a smaller number of locations is a key objective for me as we strive to maximise the effectiveness of the Defence Forces. Whilst no decision has been made in relation to the future of any particular military instal- lation I cannot give a commitment that there will not be further programmes of barrack consolidation or that any particular location will be excluded.

656 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Defence Forces Recruitment 143. Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Defence his plans for recruitment into the various sections of the Defence Forces in 2011 and 2012; and if recruitment will be sought when applications will be accepted. [16870/11]

Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter): Recruitment to the Permanent Defence Force was suspended in late 2008 pending a review of the best means by which to achieve the reduction of 3% in payroll costs that had been applied, in common with other areas of the public service, to the Defence Forces. The present position is that, within the context of consoli- dating the public finances, the Government is focused firmly on maintaining the operational efficiency of the Defence Forces. To this end, targeted recruitment was carried out in 2010 and 2011. The Military Authorities have advised that to the end of May 2011 a total of 265 General Service Recruits have been enlisted. There are no plans for further general service recruitment to the Permanent Defence Force at this time. There will be an intake of 30 cadets from the Cadetship Competition in 2011 and a number of technical appointments will also be filled. With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, I intend to retain the capacity of the organisation to operate effectively across all roles while contributing to the necessary public service economies. I am advised that at this time the Defence Forces retain the capacity to undertake the tasks laid down by Government both at home and overseas.

Grant Payments 144. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the position regarding an application for a single farm payment in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16843/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application for the Single Payment Scheme 2010 signed by the ‘Reps Of’ of the person named was received, in my Department, on 6 July 2010. Under the Terms and Conditions of the Single Payment Scheme 2010, all applications received after 11th June 2010 will incur a 100% late penalty. An official from my Department has been in direct contact with the person who signed the application on behalf of the person named in order to establish if there are any particular extenuating circumstances pertaining to this case. Once this additional information is received a decision will issue in relation to the processing of the application.

Foster Care 145. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health further to Questions Nos. 543 and 544 of 15 June 2011, if her attention has been drawn to the fact that private arrangements made by social workers do exist; and if her attention has been drawn to the number of same in each community care area or LHO region [16907/11]

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): As previously advised to the Deputy in answer to his PQ’s dated the 15th of June 2011, where a child is in the care of the State, the HSE will, where possible, place a child in foster care. In the first instance, the HSE will seek a suitable relative or person known to the child to provide relative care. Relative carers go through an assessment and approval, in a similar way to general foster carers. The child is allocated a social worker who visits regularly and a Care Plan is developed and reviewed

657 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Frances Fitzgerald.] regularly based on the needs and wishes of the child. Currently foster/relative care services are provided directly by the HSE or by private foster care agencies on behalf of the HSE. These are not ‘Private Arrangements’ under the Children Act 2001. I have asked the HSE to provide information on the number of children placed in relative care by social workers directly to the Deputy.

Children in Care 146. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Health the reason 145 applications to place a young person in special care were refused by the Health Service Executive’s national special care admissions and discharge committee between 2008 and 2010. [16951/11]

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): The HSE has a National Special Care Admissions and Discharges Committee to screen applications to ensure they meet the criteria for Special Care. It also prioritises cases where the HSE presents the case to the High Court seeking an order to allow the child be detained in a Special Care Unit. The HSE has a range of options available to children who are in need of specialised care and treatment. Children with a high level of need may also be placed in High Support Units, Multidimensional foster care services and in one child residential placements. The HSE seeks to place children in settings appropriate to their needs, where they will receive specific care and treatment required. Children who present at the National Special Care Admissions and Discharges Committee may be referred to a more appropriate service to meet their needs. I have requested the HSE to provide further information directly to the Deputy on the issue raised.

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 147. Deputy Michael McCarthy asked the Minister for Health if he will provide a definite date on which the fair deal scheme will resume; the number of persons covered by the west Cork Health Service Executive local health office area who are waiting to get into the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16859/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): The processing of approvals for financial support under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme re-commenced last week. Approvals are being issued to those applicants processed to final stage in the chronological order in which they were received in the Central Office in Tullamore. Approvals are currently being issued to the first 400 of these applicants. Funding is being assigned on a daily basis. There are approximately 700 further applications processed to final stage and now awaiting approval. With regard to the number of people in the West Cork are who are waiting for financial support under the scheme, this is a service matter and has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Health Services 148. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Health when Tralee Community Hospital, County Kerry, will be operational; the reason there has been a delay in its opening; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16860/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

658 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Health Services 149. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health further to Parliamentary Question No. 133 of 19 May 2011 when a reply will issue from the Health Service Execu- tive. [16890/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): The working group is made up of a multidisciplinary team with representation from a number of Nursing and Allied Health Pro- fessionals, Podiatrists, GPs etc. The Diabetes Federation of Ireland is also a member of this working group. The National Diabetes Working group is working through a number of key objectives, including the implementation of projects such as Diabetes Retinopathy Screening and a multidisciplinary Footcare package for patients with diabetes. The National Clinical Programme for Diabetes — which is working on care for children and adolescents with diabetes to be considered for inclusion in the 2012 HSE Service Plan — is also actively designing an Integrated Care solution, for inclusion within the Chronic Disease Watch process in collaboration with the Primary Care National Clinical Programme. With a newly established National Clinical Programme for Paediatrics, the whole area of improved services for children and adolescents with diabetes will be examined in detail and solutions worked through.

Medical Cards 150. Deputy Arthur Spring asked the Minister for Health when a medical card application will be processed in respect of persons (details supplied) in County Kerry. [16920/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 151. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health when a person (details supplied) in County Kildare will be allocated the funding necessary to remain in a nursing home; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16927/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Departmental Funding 152. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health if funding will be provided through any agency under his remit to permit a person (details supplied) in County Kildare to complete a designated course; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16929/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): Each Local and Regional Drugs Task Force has an annual funding allocation from my Department for community-based initiatives, including education and prevention programmes to counteract problem drug use. The education programmes operated by the South West Regional Drugs Task Force do not include supports for individuals who wish to undertake addiction studies. I am also advised that the HSE does not provide a national bursary for addiction studies.

Accident and Emergency Services 153. Deputy Regina Doherty asked the Minister for Health his views on the serious risk of

659 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

[ Deputy Regina Doherty.] cross infection to immuno compromised patients cancer patients, and other patients old and young waiting for long periods of 12, 24 and sometimes 48 hours in overcrowded accident and emergency departments in hospitals here; his plans to deal with these risks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16934/11]

Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): Healthcare Associated Infections (HCAIs) continue to be a challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Ireland is not unique in this regard and tackling HCAIs here continues to be a priority for the Government and for the Health Service Executive (HSE). Healthcare associated infection, including MRSA, is a challenge for all health systems across the world as healthcare becomes more intensive, complex and invasive. In 2007, the HSE launched its strategy “Say No To Infection” for prevention and control of healthcare-associated infection. A HSE HCAI Governance Group was established to lead on the implementation of this strategy and to monitor progress. Local implementation teams were also established to drive change at a local level. As part of the governance and performance management regarding this issue the HSE is committed to ensuring that infection control is an integral part of clinical and corporate governance within every healthcare institution and hospital in Ireland and an acceptance that the prevention of infection is every healthcare worker’s responsibility. In addition the focus of the HSE prevention of healthcare-associated infection clinical programme is to prevent cross infection by improving hand hygiene, antibiotic prescribing and indwelling device care (to prevent urinary catheter and IV line infections) and monitoring compliance with National Infection Prevention and Control Standards. Overcrowding in the Emergency Department is caused by many factors and any solution to problems that may arise from this issue must reflect this reality. The recently established Special Delivery Unit is the primary way I have chosen to address this. This can be achieved by improving options for patients to avoid hospital attendance and facilitating hospital discharge. The HSE clinical care programmes including the chronic disease programmes, elective surgery, emergency medical care and acute medical programme when implemented will facilitate many aspects of this. I have been in touch with the Health Information Quality Authority (HIQA) on this important issue of the risk of cross-infection resulting from overcrowding in accident and emergency departments in our hospitals. The Authority’s National Standards for the Prevention and Control of Healthcare Associated Infections and National Standards for Safer Better Healthcare are available to support and guide providers on the quality and safety of care they provide. These standards outline what a good, safe, service looks like and what the public can expect in terms of standard of care. However, I remain concerned at the potential risk to patients if in overcrowded Emergency Departments and have discussed this with my Department and the HSE to see what further immediate action can be taken to reduce this potential risk.

Medical Cards 154. Deputy Patrick O’Donovan asked the Minister for Health the reason a person (details supplied) in County Limerick had their medical card withdrawn. [16964/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy

660 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Health Services 155. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Health when braces will be provided in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Galway. [16968/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Nursing Homes Support Scheme 156. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Health the position regarding the fair deal scheme in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16975/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): The processing of approvals for financial support under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme re-commenced last week. Approvals are being issued to those applicants processed to final stage in the chronological order in which they were received in the Central Office in Tullamore. Approvals are currently being issued to the first 400 of these applicants. Funding is being assigned on a daily basis. There are approximately 700 further applications processed to final stage and now awaiting approval. With regard to an individual’s application under the scheme, this is a service matter and has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

Sport and Recreational Development 157. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason darts which is recognised as a sport in the UK and other European countries cannot receive designation here; his views that there should be parity of esteem with its treatment here as in other European countries; and the avenue of appeal open to the darts body to achieve recognition. [16842/11]

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): As outlined in my reply to the Deputy on 24 May 2011, the Irish Sports Council (ISC), which is funded by my Depart- ment, is the statutory body responsible for the promotion, development and coordination of sport which includes statutory responsibility for the recognition of sporting organisations as National Governing Bodies of sport and allocation of funding to same. The ISC was established on a statutory basis on 1st July, 1999, and the functions of the Council are outlined in Section 6 of the Irish Sports Council Act 1999. This includes recognition, for purposes of funding or for any other reason, of any sporting or recreational activity, including dealing with sporting organisations and allocation of funding to same. Therefore this is a matter for the Irish Sports Council. I understand that the ISC has replied to the Deputy regarding this matter. Regarding the avenue of appeal, this is also a matter for the ISC. I have referred the question to them for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to contact my office if a reply has not been received within ten days.

Tourism Promotion 158. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the promotion (details supplied) of Valentia Island , County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16965/11]

661 Questions— 23 June 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar): The maintenance and improvement of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those roads are funded from local authorities own resources and are supplemented by State road grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of projects to be funded is also a matter for the local authority. A total of €435.176 million is being provided in regional and local road grants in 2011. From this allocation, Kerry County Council is being provided with a total of €19.071 million. This total figure includes the additional allocation of €2.885m which was made to Kerry County Council as part of the Jobs Initiative in May. Local authorities will shortly be invited by the National Roads Authority (NRA) to submit applications for consideration for funding in 2012 under the Specific Improvement Grant Scheme. It is open to Kerry County Council to prioritise the roads in question for funding in 2012 and to include them among their application to the NRA.

662