Dáil Éireann

Vol. 728 Wednesday, No. 7 30 March 2011

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Wednesday, 30 March 2011.

Leaders’ Questions ……………………………… 789 Ceisteanna—Questions Taoiseach ………………………………… 795 Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 32 ……………… 806 Order of Business ……………………………… 807 Standing Orders: Motion …………………………… 811 Moriarty Tribunal Report Statements (resumed) …………………… 813 Ceisteanna—Questions (resumed) Minister for Social Protection Priority Questions …………………………… 833 Other Questions …………………………… 840 Adjournment Debate Matters …………………………… 849 Moriarty Tribunal Report: Statements (resumed)……………………850 Private Members’ Business Universal Social Charge: Motion (resumed) …………………… 895 Adjournment Debate School Staffing ……………………………… 918 School Enrolments …………………………… 919 TaxCode…………………………………921 Air Services to County Kerry ………………………… 923 Questions: Written Answers …………………………… 925 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Dé Céadaoin, 30 Márta 2011. Wednesday, 30 March 2011.

————

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

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Leaders’ Questions Deputy Micheál Martin: During yesterday’s statements on the Moriarty tribunal, the Taoiseach spoke for half an hour and during that time he managed many attacks on Fianna Fáil but he did not make a single statement concerning the actions and the handling of the awarding of the mobile telephone licence by Fine Gael and the Government in 1995. The specific actions he outlined were intended, in my view, to draw a line under the controversy without actually having to address the findings of the Moriarty report. The Taoiseach in his contribution yesterday stated, “We are responsible for our choices, responsible for our actions” yet he did not find anything whatsoever to criticise in the handling of this affair by the Govern- ment of which he was a member. In the past, all parties in the Dáil agreed to censure a Member on tribunal-related matters. In Government, Fianna Fáil joined with Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and others to jointly censure the late Deputy Liam Lawlor. The Opposition parties have now all publicly supported a motion of censure of Deputy Michael Lowry. The Tánaiste signalled the Labour Party’s position on Deputy Michael Lowry but the Fine Gael position remains unclear. Deputy Lowry’s performance last night shows that he does not accept he has ever done anything wrong on any issue. I think the Dáil should be equally clear in its response to that position. This morning, Fianna Fáil has circulated a text for a motion of censure, calling on Deputy Lowry to resign. Will the Taoiseach commit his party to supporting this motion and will he make time available for it to be debated in the House?

The Taoiseach: I have not seen the Fianna Fáil motion. I have seen the motion of censure from Sinn Féin which is on the Order Paper. This House does not have the constitutional authority to deny anybody access here if he or she is elected by an electorate from whatever part of the country. I will certainly give consideration to a motion of censure but if Deputy Martin believes that passing a motion about any Deputy, irrespective of the circumstances in which he or she finds themselves, has constitutional authority, I can inform him it does not. The Constitution dictates and sets out the conditions and circumstances under which persons are debarred from attending in the House as elected representatives. The Moriarty tribunal is the subject of a further discussion today. The report is divided into two parts, findings and conclusions. In respect of the findings, the Government has sent the report to the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Public Prosecutions, 789 Leaders’ 30 March 2011. Questions

[The Taoiseach.] these being the competent authorities. In addition, as part of the programme for Government, in advance of the Moriarty report being published, the Government set out a number of areas in which it wishes to take decisive action, including the banning of corporate donations. In respect of the findings and the conclusions of the Moriarty report, as I said yesterday, I have referred these to the relevant Departments in order to have their replies within four weeks on how they propose these findings and conclusions could be implemented. The debate continues today and there will be a further opportunity for Deputy Lowry to contribute. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will conclude the debate. During the course of the day I will give consideration to a motion of censure but a motion calling for the resignation of any Deputy is invalid in that the Constitution sets out the circumstances in which a person might not be able to attend this House. Motions of censure have been passed in the past and have been tabled by my party and I will give this my consideration today.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I am well aware of the constitutional situation and I am well aware that the Dáil cannot force a Member out in circumstances such as this. However, a motion of censure makes it very clear the unanimous position of the Dáil with regard to the behaviour of Deputy Lowry as outlined by the Moriarty tribunal. It is as simple as that. This is about the Dáil making a statement in as concrete and determined a fashion as possible for it about the behaviour of Deputy Lowry, as found by the Moriarty tribunal. The Taoiseach has been on notice since the publication of the findings of the Moriarty tribunal that a motion of this kind could come before the House. It is not good enough that the Taoiseach would come into the House and say he will consider the wording and so on. He knows well what a motion of censure would entail and what the content of such a motion would be. As the Taoiseach said, the House has had similar motions of censure in the past which he pursued in a vigorous and energetic manner. Why has he a problem now? I read the Taoiseach’s contribution last night and I note an ambivalence and an equivocation in the contribution with regard to Deputy Lowry and also with regard to the findings of the Moriarty tribunal. It is extraordinary that he has not yet said in this House that he accepts the findings of fact of the Moriarty tribunal. Does he accept the findings of fact as outlined by Mr. Justice Moriarty in his report?

The Taoiseach: It is quite extraordinary coming from the moral high ground on which the Deputy now stands——

Deputy Micheál Martin: Forget that now. The Taoiseach should answer the question.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach to reply, please.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Bring back the men from Taca.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin’s arrogance knows no bounds. He sat on these benches and he travelled the world on behalf of the people of this country, because Deputy Lowry and others had secret deals with his party which he refused to publish. I stated without any ambivalence at the beginning of my contribution yesterday that I am somewhat constrained because of the legal cases pending out of the Moriarty tribunal. I said both before the Moriarty report was ever published and when it was published that in an ideal world Deputy Lowry would resign from the House but we do not live in an ideal world. If Deputy Martin knows the Constitution, as he purports to do, then he will know that a motion of censure calling for the resignation of a Deputy is invalid—— 790 Leaders’ 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin: We all know that.

The Taoiseach: Motions of censure are valid here and have been passed before, including motions tabled by Fine Gael. I will give consideration to such a motion today and the Minister in his response this morning will deal with the outline. In so far as the Moriarty tribunal report is concerned, I welcome its publication and I said so last night and there is no ambiguity in my response. The report is divided into two sections, findings and conclusions and recommendations. The findings have to be dealt with by a competent authority here.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach accept the findings?

The Taoiseach: As Deputy Martin said, the conclusions are drawn by the sole member the tribunal and I have sent these conclusions to the competent authorities. I do not stand in judgment——

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach accept them?

The Taoiseach: ——on any man or woman in this country because that is not my position. The competent authorities to investigate the findings of the Moriarty tribunal are the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources immediately sent the report to them. The Government will see to it that there is a separation of business and politics. We will bring forward the ban on corporate donations and legislation ——

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is all agreed.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy’s party did not do it for 14 years.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach accept the findings of the Moriarty tribunal?

The Taoiseach: ——giving legal protection to whistleblowers.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Does Deputy Martin accept it?

Deputy Micheál Martin: I accepted it already; it is on record.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It must be the first one the Deputy ever accepted.

Deputy Micheál Martin: No it is not actually, Deputy Shatter.

The Taoiseach: After 14 years the Moriarty report is divided into two sections: findings; and conclusions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I know all that. Does the Taoiseach accept the findings or not?

An Ceann Comhairle: I wish to call——

The Taoiseach: I find the actions and the indictment of the Deputy contained in the Moriarty report to be certainly conduct most unbecoming of a public representative in this House. I have said that on many occasions. If we lived in an ideal world Deputy Lowry would not be here, but we do not live in that ideal world and I cannot speak — nor can Deputy Martin — for the electorate of Tipperary North or any other constituency in the country.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Adams. 791 Leaders’ 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach would not go on the record in terms of the findings of the report.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Martin to resume his seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is an extraordinary position that the Taoiseach of this country will not say whether he accepts findings of fact of the tribunal.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Martin to resume his seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is not acceptable. It is unprecedented.

A Deputy: No, it is not.

Deputy Micheál Martin: This is the——

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Adams. Deputy Martin, please resume your seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——biggest political scandal in the history of the State and the Taoiseach cannot comment on——

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——the findings of fact of a judge of a tribunal that was established unanimously by this House.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Martin, do you wish me to name you?

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is a disgrace.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Deputy Martin should read his brief.

Deputy Alan Shatter: There is no credibility to the Deputy’s moral indignation. He ignored everything Mr. Justice Moriarty said about his party’s former leader, Charles Haughey.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We dealt with all of that in here.

An Ceann Comhairle: Could I have some order please? Minister, Deputy Shatter, please.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Hypocrisy.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is difficult to find greater hypocrisy.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I share some of the Taoiseach’s bewilderment at the grandstanding of Fianna Fáil on this issue.

Deputy Michael McGrath: That is rich.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Sinn Féin has tabled a censure motion. This is nothing personal about Deputy Lowry at all. The tribunal, which was established by the Dáil, has come back with a report. Every Deputy who spoke on this yesterday, except the Deputy who is the respondent in many ways, said they accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the report. We simply brought it forward almost to get rid of a distraction. We believe the report, if one likes, is to do with almost Deputy Lawlor being the one who was caught out — I am sorry, I mean Deputy Lowry. 792 Leaders’ 30 March 2011. Questions

(Interruptions).

Deputy Gerry Adams: We want to deal with that business in an efficient way and then we want to get on to the other recommendations of the report, those which the Taoiseach has committed to implement. We want to work with the Government in doing that and particularly naming the corporate donors to Fine Gael and other parties, being transparent, and breaking the connection between big business and the political system.

An Ceann Comhairle: Can we have a question, please?

Deputy Gerry Adams: Can the motion be taken tonight in Government time? Fianna Fáil has indicated its desire to support it. Can the Government support it and can it be taken in Government time so that we get this out of the way and then get into the substantive issues, which are about confidence in this political system and the Oireachtas?

The Taoiseach: I have seen the Sinn Féin motion, which is a very straightforward motion of censure in respect of the activities of Deputy Lowry outlined in the findings of the Moriarty tribunal report. I find nothing wrong with that motion of censure. I want to consider the implications of a motion of censure here in respect of legal cases that are pending. Before this debate ends today, I will give the Deputy an answer in respect of what action we can, by agreement, take in respect of censure motions. The issue of a motion of the Dáil banning any Member from the House will not stand up——

Deputy Micheál Martin: How come?

The Taoiseach: ——but there have been motions of censure in the past. This is a case in which the House clearly finds the actions of Deputy Lowry not in keeping with good public representation.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I agree with the Taoiseach and I accept what he says about the expul- sion of a Member from the House, which is fair enough. We need to send a very clear signal of our view of this. It just happens to be this particular Deputy at this time. We need to send a signal to the public. While the Government makes up its mind whether it will support the censure motion, can I ask that it be taken in Government time? Regardless of its position on the motion — I would like to think it would support it — can it be taken in Government time this evening so that we are not still talking about this matter in two or three weeks time?

The Taoiseach: It could be somewhat awkward, but I believe there is scope for consideration of an agreed motion of censure. I need to consider the knock-on implications given that this is a serious report from a serious sole member who produced the report. I will ask the Whip to consult with the Opposition Whips to determine what is possible here. This debate will go on until late this evening, but I would like to think we could deal with this in an appropriate manner and I will communicate through the Whip with the Opposition leaders during the course of the day.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I wish to change track for a few minutes. A major crisis faces the people on the issue of mental health and suicide. I would like to focus my questions to the Taoiseach today so as to ensure action on this priority issue. Suicide is a growing problem in Ireland with approximately 400 deaths per year. Given that suicide rates have increased by 24% and self-harm rates by 11%, I ask the Taoiseach to make this a priority issue in the Government’s health plans. 793 Leaders’ 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Finian McGrath.]

What plans does the Taoiseach have to reduce stigma in the mental health area? Will the Government establish a dedicated executive position within the HSE to be responsible for implementing A Vision for Change? This should be led by a director of mental health services who has executive powers, an implementation budget and responsibility to report publicly on progress. Will the Taoiseach publish a comprehensive implementation plan for A Vision for Change, setting out deliverables, a timeline and who is responsible? Can the Taoiseach commit to increasing funding of mental health services from 5% to 8% of the health budget by 2016 to ensure transparency by ring-fencing an annual mental health budget? The funding issue should not be allowed to be an obstacle. This week we discovered that the port tunnel cost €804 million, which was 50% higher than its budget. I ask the Taoiseach to enact legislation to protect the rights of people with disabilities and bind public and private sector employers, and service providers with regard to the principles in A Vision for Change.

The Taoiseach: I agree with the Deputy in this matter, which has been a source of concern and interest for me for many years. From our political party, Deputy Neville raised the question of the impact of the tragic phenomenon of suicide for more than a decade. The Government has appointed the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to have specific responsibility in this area to deal with mental health and the issue of suicide. As the Deputy is aware, a number of programmes, including Sea Change, Ripple and others, deal with this central issue. I have been in too many kitchens in homes throughout the country where the depth of silence and pain is unspeakable in the sense of the tragedy of suicide. It is happening all too often particularly to young men in towns and cities. It is only by interacting with families — as the Deputy has done — where this tragedy has visited their door that one can understand its implications and consequences. I will make arrangements for the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to make statements in this regard at an appropriate time in order to increase the awareness of both of these areas and to outline what she will be able to implement this year, bearing in mind budgetary constraints. As part of the introduction of changed systems in health proposed in the programme for Government, the mental health area will be treated as a normal element of what will be provided in primary care centres. As the Deputy is aware, 70,000 people a year attempt self-harm and there are at least 300,000 people on an annual basis who suffer from elements of mental health illness. This is an area that is important to many people and yet in many ways it has been forgotten. The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, will see to it that does not happen.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Taoiseach for his response on this important issue. I take his point about Deputy Dan Neville and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, on their sincerity in getting involved in this issue. Is the Taoiseach aware that the current youth suicide rates in Ireland are the fifth highest in the European Union? The highest rate of suicide is found among young men between the ages of 20 and 29 years. Almost five times more men than women have died from suicide and suicide is the principal cause of death for men aged 15 to 35 years. It is a major national crisis. It is a huge problem for this country. Does the Taoiseach know that males are less likely than females to have attended mental health services? What will he do to resolve this crisis? Given the current economic climate with mass unemployment, which is an important risk factor for suicide, does the Taoiseach know that almost a third of the men who committed suicide were unemployed and two-thirds of them had been unemployed for more than a year? The figures speak for themselves. I ask the Taoiseach to act on this matter in the next couple 794 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions. of months. There are examples of good practice in Scotland and New Zealand in regard to reducing the stigma around mental health. I ask the Taoiseach, the Minister of State and those with a serious interest in this issue to examine the sensible solutions to the major problem facing these people.

The Taoiseach: The blueprint in respect of A Vision for Change has been well written and put together for a long number of years. It needs to be implemented effectively. The Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, will outline their proposals that she, along with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Reilly, have in this area when we make arrangements for that debate. I met a number of Traveller women last week and the incidence of suicide among young Travel- ler males is at an extraordinary level. When one meets them in their own place, one finds they are taking various educational courses and trying to understand the implications of the range of difficulties that arise from mental health problems. Suicide, unfortunately, ranks highly in the wrong place. It is true to say that for young males it is a tragic phenomenon. As the Deputy is aware, in too many cases copycat cases arise, often in the same locality. A number of public representatives in our party have lost family members to suicide. While it was a tragedy, their public life exposes them to cases where other families have faced the same issue and there is strength arising from those tragedies. Deputy McGrath can take it that this is an area of priority interest for this Government and I expect the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and the Minister for Health to ensure that happens. The Deputy’s questions are welcome in highlighting what is all too often a tragedy that should never have to visit a household.

Ceisteanna — Questions

————

Cabinet Sub-Committees 1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet sub-committees which he has established. [5741/11]

Deputy (Deputy Enda): The Government economic management council has been established with the status of a Cabinet committee. I am a member of the council, along with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Finance and Deputy Brendan Howlin. In addition to the Council, I expect that the Government will shortly establish a number of other Cabinet committees to deal with more specific aspects of policy.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Fuair mé an litir seo ón Cheann Comhairle. Dúirt sé sa litir nach féidir liom cuid an cheist seo a chur ar an Taoiseach. I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle this morning in which he regrets that he had to disallow the underlying part of my question. In deference to his ruling I am not going to put the question.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is in accordance with Standing Orders.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Is there is some secrecy involved? The Taoiseach would be very open about what committees he proposes to establish. What is the big deal? Is he going to set up a committee——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a matter of Cabinet confidentiality that I have to rule on the question. We can ask questions about sub-committees being established but not about the subject matter being discussed. 795 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

Deputy Gerry Adams: When the Taoiseach was in Opposition he said Fianna Fáil was too secretive and tight and that it was interpreting Cabinet confidentiality too strictly. Is the Taoiseach going to establish a committee on housing? The question was ruled out of order and I cannot ask it. Is he going to establish a committee on the Irish language?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy can submit a parliamentary question to the appropriate line Minister.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Adams has considerable experience in politics but he is a new Member of this House. As the Ceann Comhairle has pointed out, Cabinet sub-committees have the status of Cabinet, in the sense of confidentiality. The Deputy’s question is valid. I have formed the economic management council as one Cabinet sub-committee and I am considering a number of others. There was one dealing with the Irish language, the Gaeltacht and Irishness. We need committees on the general area of infrastructure, which would include planning and housing. I can take suggestions. I have four or five in mind and I will announce them next week. In the sense of being open, while Cabinet sub-committees retain the status of having confidentiality, unless they are mandated by the Government to make a decision they bring the issues back to Cabinet when they have teased them out or finalised them. In the course of the next week I will outline the number of Cabinet committees I intend to form. Generally, they are chaired by the Taoiseach or whatever Minister is in charge of the area to which they are relevant. From that point of view, the issues which will be raised can be debated, as distinct from the elements which are discussed in the Cabinet sub-committees.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Taoiseach suggested that he would take suggestions as to the committees that should be established. Would he consider establishing a Cabinet sub- committee on drugs as there is no longer a Minister or Minister of State with sole responsibility for it? Some of the responsibility now lies with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. At the very least there should be a Cabinet sub-committee and it is to be hoped he will take that suggestion on board.

The Taoiseach: It is a serious matter. Drugs are now available all over the country, apparently. Young people tell me they do not have to go too far if somebody is looking for these things. Some elements of the drug strategy that has been in place for a number of years have worked and some have not. There is a need to revisit the issue, in terms of its effectiveness. Whether there is a specific Cabinet sub-committee, it is something that will be dealt with by a Cabinet sub-committee in any event.

Deputy Micheál Martin: In terms of the programme for Government, in the Taoiseach’s opening remarks in establishing a Government he emphasised the necessity for joined-up Government. Nowhere is that more critical than in the area of climate change. It is not just the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- 11 o’clock ment, it requires multi-departmental engagement and involvement. From my experience of being in Government one of the more effective ways of ensuring an urgent and engaged joined-up approach to the very pressing issue of climate change is the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee. It would be an important mechanism to achieve that objective.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin can take it that there will be a Cabinet sub-committee on climate change.

796 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Will there be a Cabinet sub-committee dealing with the financial services centre? I understand the Taoiseach’s predecessor had a committee of some kind working on the activities of the IFSC. Is that the case and if so, will that be continued?

The Taoiseach: It will be part of a Cabinet sub-committee. Finance, financial institutions and financial activities are central to where we are headed and they should be the subject of a Cabinet sub-committee, whether specifically or as part of a broader brief.

Social Partnership 2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to re-establish the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5743/11]

3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has met with the representatives of trade unions and employers [5800/11]

4. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Implementation Body. [5801/11]

5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on social partnership and his plans for social partnership over the coming years [5914/11]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together. The Government values dialogue with the social partners, whether within the framework of a formal agreement or otherwise, and recognises the contribution that social dialogue can make to maximising common understanding across all sectors of society as we respond to the many challenges facing the country. Social dialogue continues to take place in different ways and through different fora. The National Economic and Social Council provides a forum for consideration of strategic economic and social issues. There have also been recent discussions at official level with the social partners and other stakeholders on the development of Ireland’s national reform programme under the Europe 2020 process. In addition, social partner representatives continue to participate in a large number of other governmental consultative fora and bodies. In particular, engagement with the public service trade unions continues to take place under the terms of the Croke Park agreement, which is the responsibility of the Minister for public expenditure and reform. I anticipate that this ongoing process of social dialogue will continue through these and other channels over the period ahead. While this process is not the concern solely of my Department, I intend to meet with the social partners in due course to outline the Government’s approach and to explore how their activities can enhance economic and social progress. I believe that any framework for engaging with the social partnerships, beyond the mechanisms I outlined earlier, can evolve if they are seen to provide value in achieving shared objectives which reflect the needs of the country at this time. The National Implementation Body, comprising Government, employer and trade union representatives, played an important role over the years in maintaining industrial relations stability under the terms of successive national pay agreements. While Deputies will be aware that there is no current national level agreement covering the private sector, the Government remains supportive of engaging with employer representatives and trade unions to ensure a positive environment for the conduct of industrial relations. 797 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

[The Taoiseach.]

I welcome the fact that the procedures agreed between ICTU and IBEC in 2010, under their Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector, have been recently extended for 2011. This protocol provides for the continuation of tripartite engagement to oversee industrial peace and stability.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I am disappointed as that is hardly a commitment to the re-establishment of the social partnership process, although I welcome the Taoiseach’s remarks that this process has played an important role in industrial relations. There is a case in point. Down the road from here, five workers in the Davenport Hotel had their wages lowered without their consent. The ensuing dispute went to the Labour Court, which found in favour of the workers. The social partnership process would have prevented that from happening. That type of scenario arises mostly because of the Government cut in the minimum wage, which sent the signal to employers that they could do this in the non-consultative way it was done in the Davenport Hotel. Would the Taoiseach commit to when the minimum wage will be put back to what it should be, which, indeed, is a minimum? I appreciate that the Taoiseach met the women workers — I am advised by a colleague behind me in this case — and he will be familiar with the case. When does the Taoiseach intend to move on his pledge to reverse the cuts in the minimum wage? Would he not consider the Davenport Hotel case as a striking example of why we need, with all its flaws, that process of social partnership?

The Taoiseach: As I stated, I favour a good environment for dealing with stable industrial relations and for the better progress of the country. I met the workers on the Davenport Hotel issue. As Deputy Adams will be aware, in the programme for Government we are committed to reversing the minimum wage reduction. This is a matter that is not merely budgetary. It may well require legislation and will require the approval under the programme of the IMF-EU deal and I cannot give the Deputy an exact date as to when the implementation of the reverse can become a reality. Those are the parameters of the situation. This is an important issue for those who are locked into it and who are the subject of actions like that outlined. I understand it was not because of the decision taken that the action referred to was precipitated but I am glad it has been resolved.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Is it not the case that the Government and major employers used so- called social partnership since 1987 to keep workers’ wages in check, but allowed speculation and profiteering in the areas of finance, property, etc., to rise uncontrolled and unchecked to obscene levels? Is it not a fraud to speak of social partnership when in the course of ten years, from 1997 to 2007, the so-called partners of ordinary workers can raise the price of a house by four times to make massive profits for themselves? Is it not the case that as soon as the idea, or pretence, of social partnership had passed its utility for both Government and big business, the Government jettisoned the idea and the trade unions, who had been under the illusion that they were partners of the Government and big business, were unceremoniously booted out in the cold? Is it in order that State agencies, such as the HSE, can treat like indentured labourers hundreds of nurses denied positions in hospitals to utilise their skills and training. They have been forced to go to agencies to be put into hospitals when the HSE can, by diktat, cut massively their wages and working conditions. Is it not despicable to treat our nurses, particularly young 798 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions. nurses, in that fashion? Will the Government continue the policy of its predecessor in that regard in treating workers — in this case public sector workers — in this way or will the Government tell the HSE that it should reverse its decision and give those nurses tenure and rights equal to their colleagues who are already in the health service?

The Taoiseach: Nobody will dispute the value, quality and heroism of nurses who work on the front line in pressurised conditions. Many fine young people who go through nurse training here and those who partake in other elements of the health service, be it physio-therapists, speech and language therapists or such like, must then leave for other jurisdictions. Yet, many come back subsequently and work as agency nurses. That speaks for itself. That is the reason, as Deputy Higgins will be aware, there must be a radically restructuring of the HSE in its current form. This is a cental part of the programme for Government. I pointed out on many occasions the obscene wastage of taxpayers’ money while at the same time nurses who provide exceptional care and attention at the front line have been let go and cannot be employed in the numbers in which one would wish. That is why I agree in the sense of losing that exceptional level of care and attention. However, it must be dealt with in part by restructuring the entire system and the programme for Government is very clear on that.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I understand we are taking all the questions on social partnership together. We have asked for the Taoiseach’s views on social partnership. I have listened carefully to what the Taoiseach has said and I believe it represents a significant departure from the concept of social partnership as we have known it in recent years. Is the Taoiseach saying today that the concept of social partnership is essentially abandoned and that we are going to evolve to a situation of what we term “social dialogue”, the phrase the Taoiseach used in his response? If this is the case, then we need more transparency on this and a clear statement, from a policy perspective, of the new Government in respect of social partnership. Social partnership is not only a social dialogue with trade unions. It involves a more comprehensive round table approach involving agricultural interests, employers, trade unions, the community and voluntary pillar and contributions and submissions from others. People can argue the merits or de-merits of it. Some people would argue that from 1987, during the last recession, it was a key factor in supporting the recovery of the economy. It is equally arguable that it was not fit for purpose in the latter part of the economic growth period we had prior to this recession. However, if it is the case that a policy departure of some significance is taking place then it should be articulated clearly and comprehensively by the Government. There may be sensitivities with the Labour Party members of Government in this regard. The Taoiseach used some significant phrases. For example, he stated that the Department of the Taoiseach is no longer solely responsible for social partnership. The Department of the Taoiseach was the cradle of social partnership and it was where social partnership resided in previous Governments in central policy terms. Has this changed now? Is the new Minister with responsibility for public expenditure and the public service now assuming responsibilities in respect of aspect of that? Could we have some clarity on this point? It seems that a significant departure is occurring on a creeping basis but it is not being articulated in any clear way.

The Taoiseach: The engagement with the social partners was never exclusively a matter for the Taoiseach, although I have led in many of the negotiations and I will continue to maintain a central interest here. As Deputy Martin is aware, primary legislation is required to establish the new Department of public expenditure and reform and it will be pushed through as a matter of some urgency. As Deputy Martin is well aware from having served in Government, the social partnership arrangement was central to stabilising industrial relations in the country for many years. Social 799 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

[The Taoiseach.] partnership extended into a whole range of areas for which it was probably never intended in the beginning. In that sense, a one size fitting everything approach did not work as effectively as it should have. I have been invited by several of the social partners to meet them and I intend to do so during the period ahead. Suffice to say that the Department of the Taoiseach, my Department, will continue to keep a central involvement in this area. When the legislation giving effect to the Minister for public expenditure and reform is completed, the Minister will be centrally involved as well.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Does the Taoiseach intend to re-establish social partnership as we knew it, in terms of engaging with the farming organisations, the trade union movement, the employers’ representatives and the community and social pillar? Will the Taoiseach bring these together on a collective basis in a meeting anytime soon?

The Taoiseach: Since the Government has been formed only recently, Ministers will be involved individually in meeting all the different groups and sectors under their departmental responsibility during the period. I intend to meet a range of groups during the coming weeks and months. When the new Department is given legal effect, it and my Department will consider the situation in so far as continuing serious interaction with the social partners is concerned.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Does the Taoiseach agree that while the idea of social partnership sounds like a good and fair idea, the reality of social partnership during the past 20 or 30 years has favoured employers and the wealthy over workers to a great extent? For example, the Taoiseach may or may not be aware of the share of national wealth that has gone to wages and salaries as against the share that has gone to profits, shares and bonuses. There has been a 10% shift in the share to the latter from the former. Does the Taoiseach agree that the facts suggest that social partnership has been a means to transfer wealth from working people to the wealthy in our society? There seems to be a suggestion in the Taoiseach’s comments that we should move away from the existing model of social partnership to what he terms “social dialogue” and that a key objective in doing this should be to reverse that situation. In this regard, I draw the Taoiseach’s attention to a dispute currently taking place in Dún Laoghaire, now almost entering its first full year of industrial action. Workers in a shoe shop, Connolly Shoes, some of whom have worked there for 38 years, have been unceremoniously sacked because they refused to accept swingeing cuts in their pay and conditions. They have simply requested consultation on these issues but have been left out on the street.

An Ceann Comhairle: A question please, Deputy.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: It has a more general point or question to it. Does the Taoiseach see it as his objective to change a situation whereby an employer could do this to workers, some of whom have worked for 38 years in a shoe shop, serving the people? This could happen and other employers could develop the confidence to do this.

An Ceann Comhairle: This is a general question, Deputy.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Should we not enact legislation which will ensure that workers cannot be treated like this by their employers? Perhaps the Taoiseach will examine that particular instance.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will take another supplementary question from Deputy Clare Daly. 800 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

Deputy Clare Daly: I note the Taoiseach’s lip service or aspiration to the idea of partnership. Will he comment on the fact that against that backdrop and as we meet here today there is a scenario where bin workers, employed by one of the Government’s local authorities, South Dublin County Council have been informed unceremoniously that as and from this Friday their trucks will be given to a private company and their wages will drop by €200 per week? For workers on a relatively low salary, this is a decimation of their living standards and a poses a great problem for the financial commitments they and their families face. Will the Taoiseach comment on whether he believes this is an appropriate manner for a local authority to conduct itself?

An Ceann Comhairle: This is a general question on social partnership, not individual disputes.

Deputy Clare Daly: I am asking the Taoiseach to comment on whether he believes this is a reflection of adequate engagement in a partnership process in one of the Government’s local authorities.

The Taoiseach: As a general comment, the programme for Government is focussed centrally on restoring good health to our public finances. The legacy that has been inherited is pretty grim. This requires some serious decision making. Fundamental to this is the confidence of our people and to give them hope that good Government can deliver opportunities for jobs and careers and satisfying and challenging work. This is part of the reason the Government will bring forward a specific jobs budget programme in its first 100 days in office and which is being worked on by the Minister with responsibility for jobs and enterprise as part of that stimulus for the local and indigenous economy. Local authorities have a legal remit to draft plans and annual budgets. Many local authorities have made decisions in respect of privatising refuse, waste collection services or whatever, some of which have been in place for many years. Change always results in difficulties and while I can sympathise with any worker in this regard, local authorities have a remit to make decisions in respect of their budgets and how they provide their services. In his previous existence, the Ceann Comhairle was aware of the issue to which Deputy Boyd Barrett referred. There are well tried mechanisms for sorting out long-running disputes. These things often require a measure of common sense and I hope that the actors in this dispute can avail of the opportunities presented to arrive at a solution that will deal with the problem raised by the Deputy.

Official Engagements 6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States on the occasion of St Patrick’s Day 2011 [5795/11]

7. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach the issues he discussed with President Obama on the occasion of his recent visit to the White House [5796/11]

8. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he met with Republican Representative Peter King during his visit to the USA in March [5797/11]

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he discussed with US President Barack Obama the withdrawal of funds for the International Fund for Ireland; and if he has any plans to pursue this matter further with Congress [5815/11]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, together. 801 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

I travelled to the US from 15 March to 18 March to attend the traditional St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. I held meetings with the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, the United States Treasury Secretary, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Chair of the Friends of Ireland Mr. Peter King, Congressman Richie Neal, other members of the US Congress, the Governor of Maryland and the Governor of Virginia. I held my first formal meeting as Taoiseach with the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, as well as informal discussions with other political leaders from Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I also met members of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board and the Global Irish Network, as well as representatives of Irish artists who were performing in America as part of the Imagine Ireland programme. I addressed the American Ireland Fund national gala and an event for business leaders which was part of an Enterprise Ireland trade mission.

I met with President Obama in the Oval Office on St. Patrick’s Day. At that meeting, Pres- ident Obama accepted my invitation to him to visit Ireland and undertook to come here on his way to his official visit to the UK in May. I took the opportunity to brief the President on the economic challenges that this Government is committed to overcoming and I emphasised the central theme of job creation. We also discussed the general situation in Northern Ireland and I expressed my appreciation for the role of the US in the peace process. The President commended Ireland on excellent examples of co-operation including food security and Ireland’s role on aid around the world. During the course of our meeting I also acknowledged the President’s commitment to immigration reform which I appreciate is a very challenging issue.

Following the meeting in the Oval Office, I attended the traditional St. Patrick’s Day lunch on Capitol Hill hosted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. That evening I attended the White House St. Patrick’s Day reception, where I presented a bowl of shamrock to President Obama.

During my visit to Washington, I discussed the International Fund for Ireland with Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the appropriations committee which deals with the fund. I expressed my gratitude for the support which the United States has provided to the Inter- national Fund for Ireland over the past 25 years and stressed that we would welcome support from the US for this specific initiative among hard-to-reach communities. I emphasised the importance of not withdrawing that aid from vulnerable communities on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Did the Taoiseach meet Representative Peter King?

The Taoiseach: Yes I did, briefly.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise the issue concerning the tens of thousands of Irish people who were forced out of their homeland in the 1980s as a result of the crisis at that time? They continue to live undocumented lives in the US, often in very insecure situations. There are many tragic stories, such as being unable to return for the funerals of their parents. This was a major issue a few years ago, but we have not heard anything very recently. Did the Taoiseach get any indication of the current position of our fellow citizens under the presidency of Barack Obama, and whether they and other migrants from elsewhere in the world would be given their full rights in the US? Did President Obama say anything to the Taoiseach about the use of Shannon Airport by the US Air Force, and the facilitation by the Irish State — I presume the current Government will continue this policy — of the US armies of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan? 802 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

During his meeting with Representative Peter King, did the Taoiseach raise the concerns of those interested in human rights about his hearings into the so-called radicalisation of the American Muslim community? This has been compared to a McCarthyite witch hunt against Muslim Americans and it has been led by a representative who, ironically, dragged his political career from obscurity to national prominence among certain Irish Americans 25 years ago by declaring his support for the disastrous paramilitary campaign of the Provisional IRA. I would like to know if the Taoiseach discussed this issue and whether he pronounced that it was deplorable to be stirring up hatred against American Muslims who have no connection with al-Qaeda or any such organisation.

The Taoiseach: Immigration reform is obviously a matter of some considerable importance to us. I know many people who have found themselves in that position for a number of years. The answer to everybody’s problem would be comprehensive immigration legislation, which is very difficult, given the scale of what is involved and the number of nationalities involved in a country the size of the US. It has been on the agenda for quite some time. The previous President made attempts to push it through, but it did not happen. The current focus of attention is on the Australian E-3 visa for Irish nationals. This might release an amount of pressure that is building up here. There have been attempts to introduce a number of Bills in the US Congress, but they all failed. I raised this matter with President Obama, the Irish ambassador and the Vice President, who has connections with Ireland. For many people involved in this, it is an issue of increasing interest. A number of those who left before the dates mentioned by the Deputy find themselves in isolation in huge conurbations, and there is a growing need to look after many of these elderly people. With enforced emigration again being a factor, this is an issue for young people as well. We will keep it on the agenda and hope that the E-3 visa system becomes a reality soon. With the change in political circumstances on Capitol Hill, it is not going to be as easy to get comprehensive legislation as it might have been in the past. I did not have an opportunity to speak to Representative Peter King at any great length. These meetings do not lend themselves to long discussions, but the issue of his comments about American Muslims were a matter of discourse in the New York area. There was a sense of excitement among Irish American businesses about rebuilding strong links with our country, investing and creating jobs in Ireland. That is something I would like to work on, because American business interests were focused clearly on the retention of our corporate tax rate at 12.5% in respect of employment and investment opportunities. It was a great opportunity to make these connections, reinforce our traditional links with the United States and continue to build on them for the future.

Deputy Joe Higgins: I also asked about Shannon Airport.

The Taoiseach: The President was grateful for the opportunity to thank us for allowing transit through Shannon Airport and the use of the facility there in accordance with the United Nations’ agreement and resolution.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is welcome that the visit to the United States was a success on many fronts. It bears out the importance of such visits. When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, they were subject to attack from time to time, not from all elements in the House but from certain elements in it. I recommend that in the future all major cities in the United States should be visited by Ministers during the week in which St. Patrick’s Day falls. That did not occur on this occasion, for a variety of reasons. We should not always pander to simplistic commentary on these issues. No other country has the opportunity we receive to profile itself. 803 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions.

[Deputy Micheál Martin.] That is why I am glad the Taoiseach participated in the Enterprise Ireland trade mission which has become the hallmark of such visits in recent years. We initiated the mission to use the opportunity to promote Irish companies. Some of the tax policy initiatives of the Obama Administration have become less pronounced, if not weakened, over time. When we were in power, we took the opportunity to locate a tax specialist in the Irish Embassy in the United States to keep an eye on how emerging tax policy in the United States might affect our corporate tax rates and the tax policies of American multinationals based in Ireland and globally. I would appreciate it if the Taoiseach indicated whether he has any updates on American plans for taxation issues pertaining to multinationals and global companies. Does the Taoiseach accept that the introduction of E3 visas means a new bilateral approach to work permits that lead to residency has been established between Ireland and the United States? Does he think it is the best approach in the short term, given that the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform is receding owing to changes in the electoral and political landscape in the United States? I refer to the recent congressional elections there. Did the Taoiseach seek agreement with Irish-American lobby groups that such an approach should be the sole focus of attention and policy direction in the coming weeks? It has been a long-standing view of mine that a bilateral arrangement with America is essential for the present and the future. It would create a bilateral framework by means of which we could try to improve and enhance the situation for those in the United States. In that context, does the Taoiseach accept it is important for the Government to ring-fence funding under the Irish emigrants support programme — the Irish abroad programme — for welfare organisations in the United States? I refer to organisations which support those who are undocumented, particularly young Irish people who are experiencing legal problems and individual predicaments, by providing valuable social, counselling and legal services.

The Taoiseach: I share the Deputy’s sentiments. It is important for us to re-establish and renew our contacts in American cities. We normally have such contacts in New York, Wash- ington, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and, to an extent, Los Angeles. I have received correspondence from other places such as San Antonio and Cleveland. It is important to encourage and motivate those who do business in both directions. Deputy Martin is aware that a significant number of American people are employed in Irish firms in the United States.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Yes.

The Taoiseach: I agree with what the Deputy said in that regard. The issue of the repatriation of tax to the United States is not as live in that country as it was a number of years ago. The Deputy dealt with that matter when he was in government. It was of some concern that people assumed this country was somehow deemed to be a tax haven for certain purposes. I was glad that was cleared up at the time. It is right to say we should prioritise the renewable E3 visa. It was assumed that the DREAM legislation would be passed by Congress, but that did not become a reality. It would be difficult to put it through now because of the change in the balance of representation there. Rather than ring-fencing moneys as suggested by the Deputy, I am keen to ensure the things he mentioned actually happen. People tend to say funds should be ring-fenced for one purpose or another. The money provided through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for various purposes, including the provision of the social, legal and counselling services needed by young people, is very important. I would like it to be maintained because it is becoming more important than ever owing to the increase in the number of Irish people drifting out 804 Ceisteanna— 30 March 2011. Questions. there. Those forced to go overseas sometimes carry problems which are exacerbated when they arrive in a new country. I share the sentiment that regardless of whether the moneys are ring- fenced, it is important that they are made available. We need to work with counselling services and other organisations which assist those who need support when away from home. I accept and share the sentiments expressed.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Bhí cuairt an Taoisigh go dtí na Stáit Aontaithe an-mhaith. Táimid buíoch dó as an obair an-mhaith a rinne sé sa tír sin. The Taoiseach had a very good visit to the United States where he did some very good work on behalf of citizens here. I particularly commend the approach he took to the International Fund for Ireland which affects Border counties on both parts of the island. I have lobbied many of those to whom the Taoiseach spoke on the issue of emigration reform, although I do not have his influence. I ask that this brú be maintained. Will the Taoiseach make it clear that he would like to see President Obama visit the North when he comes to this island? Perhaps he could stop in County Louth on his way to west Belfast.

Deputy Seán Crowe: I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach raised the issue of the undocumented Irish. During his discussions with various groups, did he get any sense that conditions were getting worse and the fear of the knock on the door in the middle of the night, followed by arrest and deportation, was growing? I am worried that the pathway that has been put in place to allow some people to obtain E3 visas does not assist tens of thousands of people who are living in the shadows. Many are not covered. While I am pleased that the Taoiseach raised the issue, is it possible for the Government to take a leading role in resolving it? The Taoiseach referred to bilateral agreements, etc. Surely measures could be taken to allow a more flexible approach to be taken to American visitors who come on holidays to this country. That would send a signal back to the United States in this respect. The fear I mentioned is growing in Irish communities in the United States. I remind the Taoiseach that at one stage an all-party group was working on this issue in the Dáil. If such a group were to be initiated again, perhaps by the Whips, does the Taoiseach think it would be helpful on this issue?

The Taoiseach: I accept that the all-party group played an important role in building bridges. The members of the group travelled to Washington and New York on a number of occasions to strike up new relationships with Congressmen and Senators. Its role was accepted on a cross- party basis. Although the group played a part, it did not work in the sense that the legislation it sought was not passed. It had a value in the sense that it motivated those who provided services for young Irish people abroad. Deputy Adams spoke about the International Fund for Ireland and Northern Ireland. I had a good conversation with Senator Leahy. Members will be aware that the Obama budget provided that funding would continue to be made available to the International Fund for Ireland, but this proposal was removed by the Republican Party when it presented its view of the budget. The ensuing hiatus will end in the next ten days or so when the budget will actually go through. Senator Leahy has strong connections with Ireland. He is chairman of the Senate committee on appropriations, a very powerful position. I explained to him the value, as we see it, of keeping IFI funding alive not just for itself but also as a signal for leveraging further funding in Europe for disadvantaged and vulnerable areas. I think he understands that very well and while I cannot confirm what the appropriations committee will do, the case was made clearly to him and I hope it will happen. In respect of President Obama visiting west Belfast, Derry or Antrim, this matter was also raised with me by the First Minister, Peter Robinson, MLA, and the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, MLA. The problem is that the President, under existing protocol, is not 805 Requests to move Adjournment of 30 March 2011. Dáil under Standing Order 32

[The Taoiseach.] allowed to go to Northern Ireland without first visiting Britain. That is a protocol issue and I am not sure I have any control over it. If President Obama decided to go close to the Border, from a protocol perspective he is expected to go to London before travelling to Northern Ireland. From that point of view I do not have any control over the issue. Nevertheless, I am glad President Obama is coming here and I hope the people of Ireland will give him a wonderful welcome and when he associates himself with part of his ancestry. I hope his visit will be an outstanding success and will build on the tourism and business opportunities it undoubtedly presents. When his itinerary is finally agreed, I hope he will have an opportunity to speak to the young people of this country about his hope and confidence for a new future in a world that is changing rapidly and in which many problems of a global magnitude cross his desk every day.

Deputy Joe Higgins: How long will the visit last?

The Taoiseach: From that point of view, I was delighted he accepted Ireland’s invitation to come here.

An Ceann Comhairle: That completes Taoiseach’s Questions for today.

Deputy Joe Higgins: How long will President Obama’s visit last?

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry Deputy, we are out of time.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Are we really?

An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps I will allow the Deputy in on the Order of Business. I would appreciate it if he would resume his seat.

Deputy Joe Higgins: Is it true that it will comprise a five hour photo opportunity?

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: There will be protests.

The Taoiseach: Certainly not.

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 a number of notices under Standing Order 32. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh followed by Deputy Niall Collins.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Ba mhaith liom an Dáil a chur ar athló faoi Bhuan Ordú 32 chun an cheist rí-thábhachtach seo a phlé, the urgent need for the Minister for Education and Skills to recognise that the previous Government’s decision to retrospectively increase the pupil-teacher ratio in gaelscoileanna was contrary to the stated objective in its programme for Government to reduce class sizes; for this Government to adhere to its promise to protect front line services in education by reversing this decision, which will lead to the loss of teachers in a number of gaelscoileanna, including Gaelscoil Inse Chor in Dublin; and to clearly commit to reducing class sizes and the pupil-teacher ratio during its term.

Deputy Niall Collins: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to debate an issue of major public importance requiring immediate consideration, namely, the financial 806 Order of 30 March 2011. Business hardship experienced by thousands of small and medium businesses who act as commercial rate payers and employers due to the lack of a coherent plan, strategy or policy by the current Government’s parties at both local and national level to reduce commercial rate charges——

Deputy Emmet Stagg: Talk about neck.

Deputy Niall Collins: ——which are having a detrimental effect on sustaining existing jobs and creating new employment in Limerick, the mid-west and across the country.

Deputy Joe Carey: Good man. He is not long changing hats.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 32.

Order of Business The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 6a, motion re Standing Orders 39, 120 and 121; and No. 10, statements in relation to the Moriarty tribunal report (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 6a shall be decided without debate. Private Members’ Business shall be No. 20, motion re universal social charge (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 6a agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I do not want to deliberate too long on this matter but it is incorrect to say that Dáil Éireann cannot express its belief that a Deputy’s behaviour merits his or her resignation from the House. On previous occasions in 2001 and 2002, this House passed motions stating that a Deputy’s behaviour merited his resignation. Those motions were in respect of the late Deputy, Liam Lawlor, and they were introduced during Government time on both occasions. The Taoiseach had no difficulty in supporting those motions as leader of Fine Gael. We clearly cannot compel a resignation but we can express our belief there should be one. I understand that the Whips are meeting later today. I do not think it will be possible to debate a motion today because of the statements and questions allowed for under the Order of Busi- ness but we could agree on the allocation of Government time to debate it and if it has to be early next week, we would settle for that. Will the Government make time available for a debate and a vote on that?

Deputy Gerry Adams: Sinn Féin objected to the Order of Business yesterday because the Government proposed statements rather than a debate. The Taoiseach has indicated that he will attempt to reach agreement on a motion of censure which could be passed without debate. As that could be done this evening, is it his intention to revert to the House with a revised Order Paper?

The Taoiseach: The Whips are meeting at 5 p.m. and I hope they can reach agreement on a conclusion to this matter. The motion of 30 January 2001 in respect of the tribunal then sitting to investigate the late Deputy, Liam Lawlor, stated:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, given the sentence of the High Court, structured as it was to elicit full co-operation within a definite timeframe and the fact that the judge referred to his membership of Dáil Éireann, Deputy Lawlor should now fully meet the requirements of the courts and the tribunal or, that failure to do so within that timeframe would confirm his membership of Dáil Éireann to be untenable and that he should voluntarily resign his membership. 807 Order of 30 March 2011. Business

[The Taoiseach.]

This resulted from a decision of the High Court. An amendment was tabled to the motion and the Dáil divided, with 79 Deputies for the motion and 72 against it. The Whips will meet to ascertain whether we can arrange an agreed position, which I would be happy to take in Government time.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: In light of the unprecedented intervention by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to lend support to the Judiciary as a result of criticism of Mr. Justice Moriarty by certain individuals, does the Government intend to bring forward legislation to deal with this matter? Was the Minister speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of the Government? As a result of that matter, does the Taoiseach have concerns about the ownership of media organisations and the potential for undue influence being brought to bear in regard to the coverage of certain matters?

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised in regard to this matter?

The Taoiseach: The Minister was speaking on behalf of the Government. It was not the first time this happened but on this occasion an unwarranted attack was made on the entire Judiciary as an institution. While people may well criticise individual members of the Judiciary, they are appointed to be independent and objective in their analysis. In the case arising from the tribunal, it is possible to have tribunal reports adjusted or corrected by the courts. That demon- strates that the intended impact of these attacks is unjustified in the sense that one cannot say that all the members of the Judiciary as an institution share the same mentality. There are plenty of examples of tribunal reports being corrected by order of another court. While a tribunal is not a court, courts have adjusted or corrected other reports by judges. Deputy Shatter was speaking on behalf of the Government in condemning and deploring unwarranted and unjustified attacks on members of the Judiciary and the Judiciary as an institution. It is simply not good enough.

Deputy Michael McGrath: As the Taoiseach knows, the bank stress test results are due to be announced tomorrow. I assume they will be announced, in the normal way, by the Central Bank. Given the serious impact they will have on the future of our banking sector, when will the Minister for Finance come before the House to make a statement on the result of the stress tests and take questions from members of the Opposition? Will the Taoiseach give us an update or progress report on the Fine Gael plans to impose burden-sharing on senior bondholders, as announced previously?

The Taoiseach: The results will be announced around 4 p.m. tomorrow, I understand, by the Governor of the Central Bank. The Minister for Finance will address the Dáil around that time and there will be an opportunity for at least a round of contributions from the spokespersons on finance. The Minister will outline decisions that are being taken by Government with regard to preparing for the results of the stress tests and taking definitive steps to ensure we have a strong, working, credible banking structure so that we can move towards restoring a good, sound financial system in which banks can do what they are supposed to do, which is to manage people’s money and provide access to credit for business and for expansion opportunities. The Minister for Finance will address the Dáil tomorrow around 4.30 p.m. and there will be an opportunity for spokespersons on finance to make a contribution at that stage.

Deputy Niall Collins: Is any legislation promised or proposed to amend the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 and, if so, when does the Taoiseach expect to bring it before the House? 808 Order of 30 March 2011. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: Is legislation promised in this regard?

The Taoiseach: These greyhounds have been running for years. The list of legislation will be published next Tuesday. As I stand here I cannot actually tell the Deputy whether the Depart- ment has said this will be on the A list, but I will let him know during the course of the day.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: They will be left running after the deer.

Deputy Joe McHugh: In light of the British Government’s plan to produce a consultation paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, I ask the Taoiseach to consider instituting a parallel consultation or engagement through our own Department of Finance to deal with the effect this will have on our Border area. Through this consultation, there may be a proposal for a 12.5% corporation tax rate, a review of tax credits——

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy. I appreciate the importance of the issue, but it is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Deputy Joe McHugh: ——for research and development and other tax reliefs. I ask the Taoiseach to consider a parallel conversation and the possibility of introducing legislation in this area.

An Ceann Comhairle: I cannot ask the Taoiseach if he will have a parallel conversation on the Order of Business.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: For the parliamentary party.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Are there any proposals by the Government to introduce legislation on——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for a parliamentary question. The issues we deal with are promised legislation or time for debates. It is not a free-for-all. Questions such as this may be tabled as parliamentary questions to the appropriate Minister. If it is promised legislation, the Deputy may ask when it will be introduced.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is promised, actually.

An Ceann Comhairle: Otherwise, we will be here for too long. The Deputies are eating into the time for the debate, and that is why I must keep order. I ask people to co-operate. I am not trying to be awkward. Please understand what is allowable on the Order of Business. Is there promised legislation? If not, the Deputy will have to resume his seat.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is promised, and I am asking whether the Government is proposing to introduce that legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is it promised?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It is promised.

An Ceann Comhairle: Thank you.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: There was a promise to address the issue, and I am asking whether it will be addressed in the form of legislation. I refer to mortgage defaults, about which promises have been made outside the House, and it is in accordance with the Standing Orders laid down by the House to raise matters of promised legislation. 809 Order of 30 March 2011. Business

An Ceann Comhairle: That is correct.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: To restart, when will there be proposals to deal with mortgage defaults? This is an issue that we in Sinn Féin have raised consistently. It is serious and it is coming at us down the road. This is highlighted by the fact that Irish Life & Permanent has been delisted from the stock markets here and in London, given that fact that the bank was heavily involved in mortgage and development lending.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Taoiseach to tell us when the legislation will be introduced.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Is there a proposal to deal with debt relief or debt forgiveness, as distinct from interest relief, which is being talked about at this point? We will hear the results of the stress tests——

An Ceann Comhairle: Could we have the answer to the question?

Deputy Pearse Doherty: ——which will allow relief for the banks, but what about the other end — relief for the people who have to pay the mortgages?

The Taoiseach: There was a sub-group that dealt with this, but I do not think they came forward with a view about legislation. It is an important and serious issue. I will ask the Whip to report the up-to-date position to the Deputy today.

Deputy Martin Ferris: In light of the actions of the previous Government after the dissolution of the Dáil, does the Taoiseach intend to introduce any legislation to outlaw this form of cronyism? I am referring in particular to the actions of Pat Carey regarding Shell, and appointments to State boards and so on.

The Taoiseach: As the Deputy knows, it is the intention of the Government to introduce a system under which, for future appointments, the appointee will appear before the relevant committee of the Dáil to present his or her credentials and proposals for the committee, agency or board concerned. That is good for the appointees themselves; if they feel they can add something to a board or agency, they will have the opportunity to come before an Oireachtas committee to explain their vision for the position for which they wish to apply. I raised with the former Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, the fact that there should not be a rush to make appointments during the hiatus between one Government and the next, as happened in this case. Obviously Governments have done this over the years, but it seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths on the last few occasions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: No, no.

A Deputy: You did it yourself.

Deputy Micheál Martin: At least the Taoiseach said it with a smile.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: There, there.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Bord Fáilte.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy: When is it proposed to put the Student Support Bill, which is long awaited, back on the agenda?

810 Standing 30 March 2011. Orders: Motion

In the programme for Government, there is a promise to change the Adjournment Debate so that it will deal with current issues and be taken in the middle of the day. When does the Taoiseach hope to get that up and running?

The Taoiseach: I dealt with the last point at the start of the first ordinary Question Time in the Dáil. I understand we will have a debate and contributions from Members about Dáil reform and making the place more effective. I must say I am all for that. We should have an opportunity for topical issues to be raised by Members so that they can not only 12 o’clock give a short contribution and receive a relevant answer, but also ask a follow-up question. In this way we will ensure the debate is not as sterile as it has been over the years, with Ministers of State who sometimes had no responsibility at all in the relevant areas reading prepared replies which might have been written much earlier and might not have reflected the evolving situation in some cases. That will be helpful. The list of legislation will be published on Tuesday, and I do not know whether the Depart- ment of Education and Skills intends to put the Student Support Bill on that list.

Standing Orders: Motion Government Chief Whip (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

“That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, until further notice in the 31st Dáil, the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business are hereby amended as follows—

(a) With effect from 5th April, 2011, in Standing Order 39, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (1)(iv):

(iv) The sequence in which Questions nominated for priority are placed on the Order Paper each day shall be as follows:

FIRST WEEK

Day Group Question No.

Tuesday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Sinn Féin 5

Wednesday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Technical Group 5

Thursday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Sinn Féin 5

811 Standing 30 March 2011. Orders: Motion

[Deputy Paul Kehoe.] SECOND WEEK

Day Group Question No.

Tuesday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Technical Group 5

Wednesday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Sinn Féin 5

Thursday Fianna Fáil 1 Sinn Féin 2 Technical Group 3 Fianna Fáil 4 Technical Group 5

Provided that a party which is a group under Standing Order 120(1)(a) shall have precedence over a group recognised under paragraph (1)(b) of that Standing Order.’,

(b) STANDING ORDER 120 — GROUPS With effect from 12th April, 2011, in Standing Order 120, by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (5):

(5) (i) Each group shall have the right to nominate a private member of the group either to move a motion standing in his or her name or to proceed with a Stage of a Bill in the Dáil.

(ii) The frequency with which each group may exercise this right shall be determined on the basis of the number of members in the groups;

(iii) The sequence in which the groups may exercise this right shall be as follows:

First occasion on which private members’ business is to be taken: Fianna Fáil

Next available occasion: Sinn Féin

Next available occasion: Technical Group

Next available occasion: Fianna Fáil

Next available occasion: Sinn Féin

Next available occasion: Fianna Fáil

Next available occasion: Technical Group

Next available occasion: Fianna Fáil

Next available occasion: Sinn Féin 812 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

Next available occasion: Technical Group

Next available occasion: Sequence to recommence.

(iv) The sequence set out above shall recommence on the resumption of Dáil Éireann following any adjournment for a Summer Recess.

Provided that a party which is a group under paragraph (1)(a) shall have precedence over a group recognised under paragraph (1)(b).’,

and

(c) STANDING ORDER 121 — TIME LIMITS TO DEBATE With effect from 5th April, 2011, in Standing Order 121, by the insertion of the following Provisos to paragraph (4):

Provided that the following time limits and sequence of speakers shall apply on the debate on a motion proposed by a private member which is limited to three hours:

Proposer 40 minutes

Government 30 minutes

Opposition 1* 15 minutes

Opposition 2* 15 minutes

Government 30 minutes

Proposer 30 minutes

Government 5 minutes

Proposer (to reply) 15 minutes

Provided further that a party which is a group under Standing Order 120(1)(a) shall have precedence over a group recognised under paragraph (1)(b) of that Standing Order.’.”

[Opposition 1 and 2 are- (i) Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, respectively, when the proposer is Fianna Fáil;

(ii) Fianna Fáil and the Technical Group,respectively, when the proposer is Sinn Féin; and

(iii) Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, respectively, whenthe proposer is the Technical Group.]

Question put and agreed to.

Moriarty Tribunal Report: Statements (Resumed) Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): I wish to share time with Deputies Eoghan Murphy and Mary Mitchell O’Connor.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Is that agreed? Agreed.

813 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. The Moriarty report presents an unedifying picture of politics and public affairs in Ireland. One of the foremost challenges facing Dáil Éireann is to respond to the report’s findings in a forthright and honest way and implement the recommendations for reform. The Government is determined to give a lead, not merely by referring the report for investigation by the Garda and whatever action the Director of Public Prosecutions considers necessary on foot of a Garda investigation, but also by giving prominence to implementing the far-reaching reforms set out in the programme for Government and enunciated by the Taoiseach during yesterday’s debate. The tribunal attaches no blame to the Government of 16 years ago but commentators have made the point that the current Government will be judged by the reforms it makes in the report’s wake. I agree with that, which is why the Government is committed to the reform programme. As I said last week, the report’s findings are of the utmost gravity regarding the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. It is for this reason that I, on behalf of the Govern- ment, have referred the report to the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have no doubt these institutions will urgently follow up on their examination of the report’s findings. I welcome the publication of the report. It is a comprehensive and exhaustive treatment of very complex matters. Mr. Justice Moriarty deserves to be commended on producing a report which, while very lengthy, is clear and well-structured. Two of the unsuccessful consortia in the second mobile phone competition issued proceedings against the State in 2001. In 2007, pursuant to an application by the State, these proceedings were struck out by the High Court for want of prosecution on the grounds of delay. These matters are under appeal by the unsuccessful bidders to the Supreme Court. I am advised they are likely to be heard in the not too distant future. Deputies, therefore, will understand my ability to comment in this debate on the GSM 2 award process is of necessity somewhat restricted. I must, however, place on the record of the House that the report made no finding that the result of the second mobile phone competition was incorrect. I want to give the House some context to the report and set out the involvement of the State, mainly in the form of my Department, in the proceedings of the tribunal. The tribunal’s terms of reference, as passed by resolutions of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 11 September 1997 and 18 September 1997, respectively, provided that the tribunal was required to inquire urgently into and report to the Clerk of the Dáil and to make such findings and recommendations as it saw fit concerning the specific factual matters of urgent public importance relating to alleged payments to Charles J. Haughey and Michael Lowry. Although the terms of reference made no mention of the second GSM licence, after certain private investigations, the sole member determined to have public sittings concerning Deputy Lowry and the GSM competition. It would be useful if I gave the House some brief background to the second GSM competition. This is dealt with in considerable detail in the report. The then Government announced on 2 March 1995 an open competitive bidding process with a view to the granting of a GSM licence to a second cellular phone operator. The competition was to be overseen by the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. A request for proposals, RFP, for licence applicants was also announced. The RFP was the grounding document for the GSM competition, setting out the criteria to be used to select the winner. Winning the competition entitled the winning applicant to the exclusive right only to negotiate for the licence. It did not

814 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements necessarily mean that the licence would issue to the applicant. Further negotiations were required for that. The competition was dictated by EU law to break a monopoly. A project group, formed by the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and including representation from the Department of Finance, was set up to oversee the competition. The competition documentation was provided to the European Commission to ensure it complied with EU competition rules. The Commission raised objections about the cash bid element for the licence, suggesting it could act as a barrier to market entry. Informal negotiations between members of the project group and the Commission led to a compromise whereby an open-ended auction style fee for the licence was replaced with a fee to be determined by the applicants but subject to a maximum of £15 million. Accordingly, following discussions and correspondence, the approach of using a maximum fee for the licence was accepted by the Commission. This ensured the Commission’s requirement that no unfair burden be placed on new market entrants was satisfied. The Commission otherwise endorsed the parameters of the competition. The then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications engaged, by way of competitive tender, Andersen Management International, AMI, leading GSM consultants and experts to assist with the process. The project team was thus made up of the members of the Departments of Transport, Energy and Communications and of Finance, as well as AMI. This group ran the competition. Esat Digifone Limited, Esat, was announced as the winner by the then Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications on 25 October 1995. After successful licence negotiations, the GSM licence issued to Esat on 16 May 1996. After an extensive private investigative phase, involving officials from both Departments and including a meeting with officials from the Attorney General’s Office, the tribunal decided to conduct public hearings in the matter. These public hearings commenced on 3 December 2002. The last day of public hearings of the tribunal was 5 November 2010. Over those eight years, the tribunal held some 163 public hearing days in batches. Some 20 witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the State. These comprised officials and secondees to the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the Department of Finance, the Office of the Attorney General, and also Mr. Richard Nesbitt, SC, counsel to the Department. Professor Michael Andersen, lead AMI consultant to the process, also gave evidence. Accordingly, a total of 94 days of evidence was given by officials of the State and supporting experts out of a total of 163 days of the GSM module sittings. In addition, the State side through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor engaged in voluminous correspondence with the tribunal over the period. This included lengthy and detailed legal submissions on various issues arising, as well as extensive exchange of letters on many issues arising. The cost of the tribunal to date incurred by my Department, including legal costs, is approximately €3.3 million. This is additional to the direct costs of the tribunal itself. The House will expect me to deal with the report as it relates to civil servants involved in the process. It is not my task to conceal the shortcomings identified in the report but, on the substantive issues, it is very clear. For example, the report acknowledges that the officials with whom Mr. Lowry interacted had “no means of knowing that Mr. Lowry was conveying information to Mr. O’Brien, or any other interested party, and had no reason to suspect Mr. Lowry’s motives”. The report referring to the two officials most directly involved in the project group stated, “the commitment and engagement of those officials could not be faulted”. Also, the sole member observed:

It is undoubtedly the case that the tribunal’s investigations were personally and profession- ally discomforting for those officials, who, through no fault of their own found themselves at

815 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] the intersection of an irregular and improper relationship between politics and business, in the persons of Mr. Michael Lowry and Mr. Denis O’ Brien, of which they had no knowledge at any time.

The sole member added, “It is Mr. Lowry and Mr. O’Brien who were at fault, and had either of them seen fit to respond to the tribunal enquiries openly and honestly, those officials would have been spared the spectre of public scrutiny of their actions”. In this context the report finds that the then Secretary General advised the Minister at the outset of the process to be cautious in dealing with interested parties. The report is critical of some aspects of the process. In view of the court proceedings to which I referred earlier, I do not intend to comment on the sole member’s observations in this area which may be an important part of any future court proceedings where the State will be defending its position. I note, however, in passing that in some instances where the sole member was critical of the execution of the process he remarked that some actions were made “unwittingly” and that the implementation of the process by some officials was “no doubt actuated by a desire for a decisive, efficient and productive process, and one that would secure the policy objective of delivering a second operator”. Elsewhere, the tribunal remarks that it “does not believe that the evaluators ever consciously intended to approach the evaluation otherwise than fairly and with open minds”. This is not to deny these criticisms by the tribunal of the administration of the process by the Department. In this regard, the tribunal suggests greater precautions should have been taken to segregate those conducting the evaluation from the Minister. This must, however, also be read in the context of the tribunal statement that the officials in question had no means of knowing Mr. Lowry was conveying information to one of the bidders. It is neither possible nor desirable to end interaction between Minister and civil servants on material issues; however, if a process is agreed that is intended to ring-fence a particular issue, great care should be taken to ensure that it happens. There is much to ponder arising from the report in regard to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to address this issue. The Government’s commitment is to legislate for a reformulated code of laws that will spell out the legal relationship between Ministers and their civil servants, identifying the true decision makers and indicating their accountability for decisions taken. The powers and responsibilities of Secretaries General will be strengthened so as to assist them, if needs be, in standing up to political masters who are less attentive to the requirements of due process and sound administration. What we have suggested is that the Secretary General will have statutory authority to ensure that the Department and its officers perform their functions in a non-political and impartial manner, in accordance with law and with the highest ethical standards of conduct and integrity and with any prescribed code of conduct. In this scenario the Secretary General would be required to ensure that risk management and other internal controls are in place so that public funds are safeguarded; functions are performed effectively, efficiently and economically; laws, regulations and approved policies are complied with; records and reports are adequate, reliable and accurate. The independent statutory responsibilities of a Secretary General will extend to taking the necessary steps to safeguard that all persons concerned -Ministers, advisors and civil servants — perform their functions in a way that avoids the unlawful or irregular use of public funds or resources, or that are otherwise contrary to fair and sound administration. In line with its remit, the report makes a number of recommendations set out under the headings of political funding, company law, revenue matters, regulation, and tribunals of inquiry. I will presently address these matters, especially those relating to the intersection of

816 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements politics and business. First, I wish to deal with the issue of regulation in so far as the area of communications is concerned. In this context, I note that the tribunal has made no recommendation on the future conduct of competitions in the telecommunications sector. In fact, the position in this regard has changed fundamentally from that which obtained at the time of the competition for the second GSM licence. ComReg is now the statutory body responsible for the regulation of the electronic communications and the postal sectors in accordance with Irish and EU Law. It was established in December 2002, under the Communications Regulation Act 2002. ComReg has a range of statutory functions and objectives with regard to the provision of electronic communications networks and services. One of their key functions is to ensure efficient management and use of the radio frequency spectrum, which encompasses the award of spectrum for mobile telephone licences. Section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act provides that ComReg shall be independent in the exercise of its functions, although in certain circumstances ComReg is required to comply with policy directions issued to it by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. ComReg’s licensing of use of the radio spectrum under national legislation is subject to the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications. The framework requires that ComReg ensure that the allocation and assignment of such radio frequencies is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria. It also requires that ComReg establish open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures for the grant of licences and cause any such procedures to be made publicly available. Additionally, the framework requires that, where ComReg decides to use competitive or comparative selection procedures for the grant of a limited number of licences, such procedures are fair, reasonable, open and transparent to all interested parties. Finally, as regards member state involvement, the framework requires that member states guarantee the independence of national regulatory authorities by ensuring they are legally distinct and functionally independent of all organisations providing networks and services. Member states have to ensure that their national regulatory authorities exercise their powers impartially, transparently and in a timely manner. In summary, the current arrangements for the licensing of spectrum are administered by an independent regulator who is free from political or ministerial interference. In the areas of energy and broadcasting, which are also part of my ministerial portfolio, independent regulators are also in place in the form of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the Commission for Energy Regulation. These regulators are also statutorily independent from the Minister of the day in the performance of their duties. More generally, there are lessons to be learned for the conduct of public administration. Public procurement processes have evolved since the competition for the State’s second GSM licence. I have already outlined the significant changes with the introduction of independent regulators in my own area. We need to examine whether there are further changes in procurement that should be made following this tribunal’s investigations. I would like to comment on the report from the point of view of, as the report puts it, “the intersection of the worlds of politics and business”. The members of this House and the general public find themselves, according to the report of the tribunal, contemplating an incident in which a senior office holder has betrayed public trust. The fact that a Minister’s actions while in office had been described as venal and disgraceful after 14 years of investigation has now been well aired in political, media and public discussion. The problem lies at one single place in Irish life — the point at which business and politics meet. We in this House and in particular those of us in Government regularly make decisions that affect the fortunes of corporate

817 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] interests. We are entrusted by the people to make those decisions in the public interest. In broad terms, good public policy decisions will also create a healthy environment in which businesses operate but the decisions we make may also regularly benefit or hinder particular businesses to a very large degree. Politicians, as a by-product of particular decisions we make, in passing can enrich particular businesses and individuals. It is this fact that requires us to be particularly vigilant, stringent and transparent about how we police that point where we interact with the commercial world. It is now clear to everyone in this House that we have failed to do this adequately. No Government has a monopoly on poor standards in this area, as we see from Mr Justice Moriarty’s reports. We must now as a House resolve to deal with this matter once and for all. The Taoiseach set out that agenda yesterday. As well as the struggle to restore our country’s finances, the Government must also rebuild the reputation of Irish politics. To this end I hope we will now have the full support of this House for a number of important measures that will further regulate the relationship between business and politics. First, we intend finally to introduce legislation to ban corporate donations to individual candidates, politicians and political parties. This is not to say that all such donations in the past have been made for improper motives but it is reasonable for the public always to be sceptical of the reasons why businesses choose to fund politicians and their parties. For this reason alone, the practice must end. We plan to regulate lobbyists and lobbying. Businesses, industry groups and individuals make representations and arguments to Government and individual Departments and Ministers every day. It is important for those making the case to ensure they can get a hearing and for those making decisions who need to hear from those with expertise and interests in the area. This lobbying must be open and transparent. It is important for the Government to know precisely what interests are represented by anyone making a case to it. It is important also for the public to know who is making representations, to what end, and to whom. We will therefore propose a register of lobbyists and other regulation of how lobbying is conducted. We will also introduce protection for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing in the public and private sectors. I will turn briefly to the length of time that has elapsed since this House first decided to have these matters examined. I do not think there is a better example of our current inability to examine matters of public importance and reach conclusions quickly than the length of time the Moriarty tribunal took to report. In saying that, I do not criticise the tribunal or its chairman. The sole member deals with the reasons for the delay in his report. However, we must find a way to deal with issues such as this quickly and effectively. The Government has pledged to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution to give Dáil committees full powers of investigation. The Abbeylara Supreme Court decision currently limits the ability of Dáil committees to hold investigations into crucial issues of public concern, such as the banking crisis. That is an issue we intend to address. In addition, in the case of criminal investigations, my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, has already announced work on a package of reforms to enhance the powers of the Garda Síochána in the investigation of white-collar crime. More generally, one must ensure that the law and regulation prescribe that there is a healthy and arms-length relationship between business and politics. If money changes hands, it will be illegal. If business people exercise their right to lobby and make representations, let it be open and transparent. In dealing with Mr. Justice Moriarty’s account of this grave and frankly depressing episode involving Ireland’s business and political life, I will make a positive point about the partnership between business and politics. It is business and politics, working together, that will lead this country out of the severe economic difficulties that it is facing. Each element of society has

818 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements much to learn from the other, and our country and society have much to gain from working together. Today, let us in this House resolve that in future that relationship will be conducted openly and in an atmosphere in which the public can be confident that it is free from any impropriety, or suspicion of impropriety.

Deputy Eoghan Murphy: I did not imagine that my maiden speech to this House would be on a matter of such importance to this country. I apologise if my words do not do the gravity of the situation justice. Like many of my colleagues, I stand as a newly elected representative to Dáil Éireann, elected at a time of unprecedented difficulty for this country, from the people’s desire for a new direction in public life. I have been trying to figure out what that means for me and for all of us as public representatives. I was trying to understand the expectations people have and then the findings of the Moriarty tribunal were published. I have waded through the report and looked at the background documentation. It does not paint a pretty picture; crony capitalism, improper influence, a lack of accountability, low standards in high places. It is not what public service is meant to be. That is not why we were chosen to be here. The recent election can be understood as a direct reaction to the kind of practices described in the report. We cannot erase the contents of the report or the failings it catalogues. We should not try to. There are important lessons for all of us. We must ensure we take those lessons with us beyond the debate. I commend the Taoiseach’s swift reaction to the publication of the report, on the forwarding of the report to the DPP and the Garda Commissioner, on his clear direction of the recommendations emanating from the tribunal’s inquiries, in the prompt scheduling of this important debate and the time allocated to it in this Chamber. I also commend the Taoiseach’s statement on the matter yesterday and the ten key commitments to transparency and reform contained within the statement which are also contained within the programme for government and include the commitments recently outlined by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, in the Chamber. We must extend the principles of open government and honest government throughout the corridors of power. We act for the people. They have a right to know what we do on their behalf and how we do it. Open government is good government. That is one of the reasons I stood in the recent election. With the commitments given by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste we will make a proper start in that direction. There is more that we can do. It was brought to my attention at the weekend that this country has still not ratified the UN Convention against Corruption. We are a signatory state but not a state party. When our country is under such scrutiny internationally, our failure to ratify and become a full state party to such an important convention is embarrassing. It might be seen by others as a lack of proper support for such standards on our part. We must move to rectify that immediately. It is also time that measures under Article 12 of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Con- vention on Corruption relating to trading in influence are transposed into domestic law. We are duty bound to do so under our international commitments but we are compelled to do so by the recent election and the necessity to find proper measures against white-collar crime. To protect the objectivity and integrity of the Civil Service we must adopt similar practices to those in the United Kingdom, whereby a senior civil servant can formally and on public record request written ministerial direction when he or she disagrees with a Minister’s decision so strongly that he or she refuses to be accountable for it. Such occasions would likely be rare but would serve to indicate to the public where political considerations of the Minister in charge might be contrary to the best interests of the State. It might also be prudent for us, as elected Members to this House, and as we share a collective responsibility to the people, to examine whether a mechanism may be necessary to allow

819 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Eoghan Murphy.] this House to expel one of its own. We heard from the Taoiseach this morning that this would require a change to the Constitution. That option should be explored.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: As a new Deputy, elected in Dún Laoghaire I am saddened that my maiden speech to Dáil Éireann must address a scandal relating to disreputable political behaviour. I have spoken to many of my constituents in recent days and they want this matter dealt with as quickly as possible and the recommendations of the Moriarty report implemented as soon as possible. The events investigated in the report happened more than 20 years ago and everyone knows — even the dogs on the street — that the main protagonists, Deputy Lowry and Mr. O’Brien, are not telling the truth. People in my constituency beg us to move on from this scandal and get to the real issues that affect young people and families, namely, unemployment and emigration, mortgage repayments and arrears, mounting personal debt and the worry for families that they will be able to put food on the table at the end of the month. During the past week we have heard horrendous criticism of Mr. Justice Moriarty. The remarks of Deputy Lowry and Mr. O’Brien are a very bad example to young people. It is not right that the integrity of our legal system and the Judiciary is treated with such disdain and derision. While Mr. Justice Moriarty is gagged in defending himself, we in Dáil Éireann must quickly set about implementing the Moriarty recommendations as a matter of urgency. This corruption must never happen again. The people demand that the culture of politics changes utterly. This is not a time for cheap political point scoring. We, the Members of the 31st Dáil, must ensure that the type of corrupt behaviour outlined in the Moriarty report is not allowed to taint Irish politics again. During the general election the people made it known that they want political reform. The old politics which had such a corrosive effect on society is dead and buried and a new age has begun. That was made clear yesterday in the Taoiseach’s speech when he outlined plans to ban corporate donations to political parties, reduce limits on donations to political parties, introduce a register of lobbyists and new rules governing lobbying, to create a whistleblowers charter and to reform the relationship between civil servants and Ministers. The parties, Ministers and Deputies who truly believe in new politics will be those who face these recommendations full-on and arrange for their implementation in legislation, rather than those who wish to debate scandals for political advantage. If the recommendations are not given due consideration by the Legislature, the whole purpose of a lengthy and costly public inquiry and the consequent report and recommendations will be lost. There is much talk about political reform. The fact remains that the implementation of the tribunal’s recommendations, or at least the due consideration thereof, is democracy. I hope the tribunal’s recommendations will be dealt with by the Legislature in this House sooner rather than later.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputy Dara Calleary.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Michael McGrath: The findings of the Moriarty report are self-evidently absolutely devastating for Deputy Michael Lowry and others who are directly criticised therein. The report has very serious implications for the way in which the State does its business. It makes for very sobering reading. It casts a very dark shadow over the awarding of the most valuable licence awarded by any Government in the history of the State. It also casts a shadow over politics in this country. This comment is not to be interpreted in a party-political way because previous tribunal reports have cast a similar shadow and future ones may well do the same. We, as Members elected to this House, must face up to that in a very honest and forthright way.

820 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

With regard to the report, it is very clear that the integrity of the awarding of the GSM licence is now in shreds. This may have profound consequences for the State. It concerns me and, I am sure, every other Deputy in the House that legal proceedings are still under way in regard to the awarding of the licence. There can be no doubt that the case of the unsuccessful bidders for the licence has now been strengthened considerably by the content and conclusions of the report issued by Mr. Justice Moriarty. It is deeply disturbing that the procedures and guidelines that were to be followed in regard to the awarding of the licence, which were adopted in March 1995 by the then Cabinet, were clearly not adhered to. The memorandum to Cabinet, which was approved on the day in question, refers to the process as a sealed process that would be entirely non-political and that Ministers would be guardians of the process, reserving the final decision on the awarding of the GSM licence for themselves. It is clear that the content of the memorandum was not adhered to, and we have all seen the consequences of that, as detailed in a forensic fashion by Mr. Justice Moriarty. Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team are to be thanked for the work they have done on compiling such a comprehensive report. That does not take away in any way from our right, as Members of this House, to criticise the delay in and cost of the process, and to endeavour to arrive at a more efficient mechanism for getting to the truth if issues such as these ever arise again. Please God, they never will. My party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, made a very comprehensive statement to the House last night on the Moriarty report. The views he expressed are shared by all members of our party. I welcome the fact that the new Government has referred the report speedily to the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. That was a very important step and its speed is to be welcomed. It is regrettable that the significant matters dealt with in the report are only now finding their way into the hands of the competent bodies given that the licence was awarded almost 16 years ago. The contribution by the Taoiseach yesterday when opening the debate on the Moriarty report was deeply disappointing. The Taoiseach is a man of integrity but he adopted an almost neutral stance on the report’s findings. When challenged on the floor of the House this morning, he refused to state whether the Government accepts the clear findings and conclusions of Mr. Justice Moriarty in his report. The Taoiseach very deliberately steered clear of making any criticism or concurring with any criticism made by Mr. Justice Moriarty of any individuals mentioned in the report. That response was disappointing, notwithstanding the constraints that clearly exist owing to the ongoing legal proceedings. Perhaps the Taoiseach’s reticence in endorsing or accepting the findings of the report can be explained by the fact that the Fine Gael Party is criticised deeply in the report, particularly over the handling of the $50,000 donation from Telenor, the Norwegian sister company of Esat Digifone. Mr. Justice Moriarty makes it very clear in the report that there was a very clear pattern of significant and conspicuous financial support for Fine Gael by Mr. Denis O’Brien and Esat Digifone around the time of the awarding of the licence. That was designed to raise the company’s profile and its chances of success in the licence competition. The report finds that Mr. O’Brien’s companies donated over £22,000 to Fine Gael between January 1995 and June 1996. Let us be clear that the tribunal found that Fine Gael concealed from it the $50,000 donation by Telenor. The donation was made in December 1995 and was not returned until 2001, six years later. One cannot but draw the conclusion, in the context of the report that has been issued, that the donation represented a thank you cheque from Esat Digifone to the Govern- ment for its support in awarding the licence thereto. Mr. Justice Moriarty makes it very clear

821 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Michael McGrath.] in his commentary that, without the media disclosures that occurred in 2001, the matter would have remained hidden from the public. That is a pretty damning indictment of one of the main political parties in this country, which party is now the main party in Government. Mr. Justice Moriarty states: “No person or entity connected with the payments saw fit to notify the Tribunal of it, notwithstanding a substantial degree of knowledge of its clandestine circumstances and proffered return.” It is likely that, without the media spotlight in 2001, the issue would have remained hidden from the tribunal in its work. The tribunal was set up by the Oireachtas in 1997 by resolution of the Houses, as articulated by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte. It held public hearings for eight years. Both yesterday and in the days immediately following the publication of the report, we witnessed an unprecedented attack on Mr. Justice Moriarty and the entire judicial system. We are being asked to believe there is a State-wide conspiracy within the judicial system to stitch up certain individuals, and that the conclusions and findings of the report should not be believed. The conclusions in the report concerning Deputy Michael Lowry are very damning and I do not have to read into the record again the conclusions of Mr. Justice Moriarty in that regard. Deputy Lowry will now have to address those conclusions and findings with the relevant authorities to whom the report has been referred. The report states there were three financial transactions for the benefit of Deputy Lowry and that they originated from Mr. Denis O’Brien and companies associated with him. The sums in question totalled £867,000 sterling. The report goes into quite forensic detail on the flow of those transactions. It now needs to be established as a matter of fact whether those payments were actually made. The report is very clear in stating they were, and that they were for the benefit of Deputy Michael Lowry. Members of this House must accept the findings of the report in that regard. The money trail will now have to be pursued once again by the competent authorities.

The scorching attacks on the tribunal and the entire judicial system have sought to cast doubt on the integrity and independence of one of the pillars of the Constitution. Such attacks and their manner are completely unacceptable. I do not accept the conspiracy theories brought forward in the past week by those directly criticised in the report.

It is important to state that in 1995, when the final decision was made to award the licence to Esat Digifone, normal Cabinet procedures were ignored. This begs the question as to how members of the then Cabinet allowed themselves to be bypassed in this manner, whereby, in effect, the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, got the agreement of the party leaders to go ahead and announce the award of the licence to Esat Digifone without the approval of the Cabinet. The decision was brought to the Cabinet the following day for noting. In effect, members of the Cabinet had no direct input into the awarding of the most valuable licence by any Govern- ment in the history of the State.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: That is the entire point. We were not to have a role. It was an independent competition and it would have been entirely improper if we had interfered.

Deputy Michael McGrath: The final decision was one for the Government, for every Minister acting with collective responsibility.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The outcome of the competition was reported to us. If we had second- guessed it, it would have been entirely improper.

822 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

Deputy Michael McGrath: The outcome of the process was announced and then brought to the Cabinet for noting. The Cabinet was given no opportunity, or did not insist on being given an opportunity, to have an input into the process. I have never served in the Cabinet, but I assume that on an issue of this importance, a report or an aide-mémoire would be placed before the Cabinet with a clear recommendation and a full report being set out. Members of the Cabinet would then have an opportunity to interrogate the report and ask questions of the relevant line Minister before deciding whether to accept the recommendation attached to it. Clearly, in this case the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, bypassed the normal procedure and members of the Cabinet allowed themselves to be bypassed and did not insist on having an input in the making of the final decision which was a matter for the Cabinet. I will now speak about the conclusions and recommendations made in the report. I welcome what the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has stated and the Taoiseach stated yesterday about initiatives to be taken in the areas of lobbyists, whistleblowers and strengthening the role of Dáil committees, which is essential. We can never again allow a situation where the Dáil passes a resolution, establishes a tribunal of inquiry to investigate urgent matters of national importance and then 14 years later a report arrives on the Minister’s desk. This is not to level any criticism at Mr. Justice Moriarty or any of his legal team because great efforts were made by those subject to the inquiry to delay it at every opportunity. They succeeded in many regards and it was 14 years before the final report was issued. We can never allow this to happen again. I welcome the fact that the Government is committed to bringing forward a comprehensive ban on corporate donations. However, we must ask ourselves whether this goes far enough. Would the intended legislation prevent a person from making a personal donation? What would prevent Mr. O’Brien or any of his employees from making large personal donations? Are these also to be banned or will we go as far as insisting that, irrespective of the monetary amount, all donations to politicians or parties, whether from personal, corporate or trade union sources, be published? This is a challenge to be faced up to by all parties and every Member of the House. Are we prepared to go this far to ensure proper transparency in the system of funding for political parties? I welcome the fact that we are having this debate and that the report has been published, the findings of which should be accepted. I also welcome the fact that the report has been referred to the competent authorities. There are great lessons to be learned not only in terms of the process used for the awarding of a licence in this way but also on how politics are conducted and we can establish probes in the future to get to the bottom of issues such as this in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I begin by genuinely wishing the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, every success in their new positions. I hope we trained the Minister of State well on the previous Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation for the burden of office ahead. It is a shame that the Minister begins office by having this landed on him and I hope it does not take away from the focus on the other important work the Department has to do. The striking feature of the report is the definitive nature of its findings. The judge has pulled no punches in the manner in which he has constructed the report. In a profession which is known for long language and words, the judge has gone back to basics. When reading the report, one is struck by the amount of time and effort he put in to proving his conclusions. Last night I listened to Deputy Lowry who absolutely and passionately disagrees with the report. The same can be said for some of the other protagonists not in the House. It strikes me that we need a system for the independent adjudication of future disputes. It also strikes

823 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Dara Calleary.] me in reading the report that it has been shown by Mr. Justice Moriarty that there was at the time a wrong relationship between the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, and certain protagonists. We need to ensure this did not affect other issues or contracts in the Department at the time. I refer specifically to the mini-CTC project inqiry, of which Deputy Rabbitte was a member and which was halted a result of the Abbeylara judgment. The Abbeylara judgment needs to be finally dealt with once and for all. We have a date with the electorate next October for the Presidential election and it would be in our interests and those of the profession of politics, doing business in this country and proper parliamentary democracy if we were in a position on that date in October to present a referendum to the people on dealing with the Abbeylara judgment and whatever else needs to be dealt with to have a properly empowered committee system. We do not need to return to a situation where the work of the House is done in Dublin Castle; where it takes 14 years to complete; where it is challenged through the courts by people who have resources to do so and where after 14 years the work and reputation of every Member of the House, whether we like it and whether we were mentioned in the report, is sullied. When the Minister is answering questions this evening, I would like to hear his thoughts on how we will proceed. During the time of the previous Government he stated he did not fully accept that the Abbeylara judgment blocked every inquiry. If he believes it does not do so, is it possible to proceed with the mini-CTC inquiry in order that we can draw a line under this episode also, particularly given the findings of the Moriarty tribunal report and that, to a certain extent, the same protagonists are involved? If it is the feeling of the Government that we can proceed with this inquiry, regardless of the Abbeylara case decision, it should be done immediately so as to move away and move on from this scenario. The Government has challenged itself to produce a jobs budget within 100 days of 9 March. With all of the discussion on the Moriarty tribunal, it may be easy to forget that this is the number one priority. Equally, the House should give itself deadlines on the recommendations made in the Moriarty tribunal report. Within 100 days of 22 March, the date on which the report was published, the House should implement the various recommendations to which Deputy McGrath referred with regard to funding, strengthening the role of the Standards in Public Office Commission and the disclosure of small donations, including, ironically enough in the context of this discussion, to independent candidates and Deputies. Surely we have it within ourselves to implement those proceedings within 100 days of 22 March so that as Members of the 31st Dáil we can say we are drawing a line under the actions of a very few. I know many Members from all sides who were also in the previous Dáil. Moreover, knowing that many people the length and breadth of the country are elected as public servants and work in the interests of their country and their community, I am annoyed that we are all tarred with the same brush. It is a case of, “You are all at it”. Until we draw a line under this report then we are subject to that charge. As Members of this Dáil we owe it to the many hundreds of people who have sat in this Chamber since the First Dáil, representing the interests of their community and their country. They went about their business and did their job to the best of their ability, not only in an intellectual sense but also and more important, in the moral sense. We owe it to them to draw a line under all of this culture. I know my party is up there as much as anyone else but as a Dáil we should unite in some way to draw a line and ensure this will never happen again. The reputations of 99% of those who have served in this House or who have served in council chambers around the country, can never again be sullied by the remark, “You are all at it”. It is time, once and for all, to draw a line under this culture.

824 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

Mr. Justice Moriarty has given us a road map but it needs the practical input of politicians. I ask that the Ceann Comhairle consider instituting the commission as soon as possible and giving it the specific task of responding to the findings and recommendations. The Govern- ment’s legislative programme will be published next Tuesday. I hope a deadline will be imposed for the implementation of legislation in the House before, hopefully, the Government will decide to put a referendum on committee confidentiality to the people in October. I refer to the issue of those who have let down our profession and the lack of any power of the House to censure them. A motion of censure can be tabled and I believe such a motion will be debated next week but ultimately this means nothing as it will not cost such a person a cent of salary or expenses and, at this stage, any cost in terms of public standing. In the context of examining the Abbeylara judgment, the House should consider whether there are constitutional blockages to the House having the power to expel a Member. Such a power could be dependent on a two thirds or higher majority. Given the kind of majority being won now, I accept that safeguards will be necessary to stop such a power being abused. We have surely had enough incidences in the past number of years of individual Deputies and Senators letting down the Houses that it is time to resolve to put in place a process to enable such people to be expelled from the House, to enable the House to stand up for itself. I was intrigued by the Minister’s response to Deputy Michael McGrath as to what happened at the time and the role of the Cabinet. The contract in question was the biggest commercial contract in the State. I do not refer in particular to the individual members of the Cabinet at the time but there must be a process in Cabinet which does more than note a recommendation. I have not been a member of a Cabinet but in the case of major commercial or social decisions which will have an impact on the commercial revenue of the State — in this case there is also the impact of disaffected bidders — there must be greater security and greater involvement of the Cabinet so that checks and balances can be guaranteed. This report illustrates the need for such a process which is a concrete action the political profession could take. Since 1995, Cabinets have been faced with decisions which led to significant consequences. It is clear that Cabinet procedures in general need to be revised in order to be brought up to date to deal with our modern times. I suggest such a revision could be completed relatively quickly, given all-party agreement. I note that tomorrow’s business includes statements on the role of committees. I recently read the minutes of the former committee dealing with the mini-CTC project. This committee was making progress along the lines of the DIRT inquiry but it suddenly came to a halt. I suggest that the Government sets up properly resourced committees. We learned from the experience of the 30th Dáil that more is not necessarily better and that Members spent their time every Wednesday trying to attend every meeting but without the time to undertake proper research. I was fortunate to serve on the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation under the Minister of State, Deputy Willie Penrose. Members of that committee left party affiliations outside the door when necessary and we went about our business but this was not the case for every committee. The committees took on too much work without sufficient research resources. The point of a good, effective committee structure is that when an issue such as the current one arises, it will not take 14 years to come up with a comprehensive response. A good committee structure will allow us as elected parliamentarians with mandates to take charge of our own affairs within the House, to make an input into Government policy or into general public debate in a properly resourced and managed function. It was the absence of such properly resourced and managed function that has led to the 14-year delay and to the most extraordinary legal bill imaginable. If that money had been put into a properly resourced committee system, we would have a much stronger democracy and Parliament today.

825 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Dara Calleary.]

The House has less than 100 days to unite. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, will take questions tonight on the conclusion of this debate and I believe the Taoiseach will also take questions about Fine Gael. However, then the debate will be over and we will all go about our business. The House will debate the economy tomorrow and committees will be constituted and that will be the end of it until the next tribunal report and perhaps the one after that. This is what has happened up to now. We owe it to ourselves as professional politicians, if we respect our profession and if we respect those who served before us in this House, if we respect their integrity and reputation, from the publication of the report on 22 March 2011, to decide to draw a line, once and for all and to stand up for our own reputations. We have it in our power to do this and we should not waste this opportunity.

Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I wish to share time with Deputies Jerry Buttimer and Thomas P. Broughan. I welcome Deputy Calleary’s comment that we should not move on from this debate as if nothing has changed. The thrust of the Government’s policy is to learn from this and to change the way the Dáil does its business. These findings are undoubtedly disappointing for those of us who were members of that Government. The tribunal finds that a selection 1o’clock process that was fully intended to be robust against any undue influence was subjected, according to the tribunal findings, to influence. I am very conscious that many of the issues addressed here will be further tested in the courts, whether in criminal proceedings or in civil actions. I am equally conscious that one of my predecessors in this Department was found by a statement to have prejudiced a subsequent case. It behoves us all to be very careful in what we say. Nonetheless the tribunal’s findings, conclusions and recommendations need to be taken seriously. As Deputy Calleary and many others have said, we must develop the additional failsafe mechanisms needed to police all the dimensions of the interface between various vested interests and politics. That includes cases where major decisions are taken that change the value of assets, including land, and the issue of licences. Much of the programme for Government is about addressing that and the recommendations of the tribunal add to the scope for doing so. I believe the Cabinet approved a selection process that was well designed in order to be fair and set objective criteria for the selection of a successful applicant that would be the best applicant, balancing a range of needs. We had tenders to select international experts so that would be done to the highest possible standards and the system was designed to be independent. People have asked whether the Cabinet could have done better. There has been commentary about the fact that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, got an early announcement by going to a sub-committee of Cabinet and the tribunal finds the decision of that sub-committee was understandable, based on the briefing its members received — it recognised they made a decision based on the information they received. However, the tribunal was critical that it precluded the opportunity for further scrutiny, which is a fair point and one we must consider. However, the counterpoint that must be borne in mind is that a system of independent rating of applicants conducted by people of international reputation was set up in order to take it away from a political process. If, by contrast, a meeting of Cabinet was to unpick the ratings, reweight and change the procedure, there would rightly be a very significant investigation as to whether this was political interference in a system that was designed to be independent. There is a balance to be seen there. As we design failsafe mechanisms we need to recognise that when an independent process is set up, it is not possible then for others to make the decision themselves and alter that. That balance needs to be borne in mind.

826 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

Deputy Lowry made a long address yesterday and I believe his position is untenable in the face of these findings. I admit he hotly disputes many of the findings. However, contesting those issues here in the Dáil, which is not a judicial forum and cannot sift the evidence and adjudicate, is not a convincing way to challenge the findings of the report. If he wants to convince people he ought to have exercised his rights to contest these issues in the High Court where he has an entitlement to do so. Deputy Calleary asked whether we should be taking on the powers to expel a Member, which is a difficult question and one we would need to take a good deal of time to consider. As the Taoiseach indicated this morning the voters clearly have a constitutional right to select people and we need to think hard about how we can raise standards. This has arisen in other areas and is worthy of consideration. I am not sure there is an easy or facile way of dealing with it. However, we can deal very effectively with many of the recommendations. On the issue of political donations, Fine Gael is committed to introducing a ban on corporate donations. It is wrong — as we read in the report — that corporate interests can adopt a strategy of promoting themselves and their interest with politics in a sustained way. That can only damage public confidence. I can say with confidence that donations never affected any decision I ever took as a responsible Minister, but that is not the issue. The independence needs to be seen to be there as well as being exercised. To be fair to Fine Gael, in the past it made a decision unilaterally to give up corporate political donations and ceased to take those donations. However, as other parties did not follow, it became an issue of unequal competition in contesting elections if one party was adopting what now is broadly recognised as the correct approach and others were not. Credit is due to the Minister, Deputy Noonan, for taking that stand. While perhaps the political system has taken too long to come around to his point of view, we now have a very clear Government decision which will be implemented. Equally the transparency of lobbying needs to be addressed. The capacity of lobbyists to go beyond their legitimate right to inform must be addressed by proper legislation that sets out how that is to be done. The programme for Government recognises a number of changes will strengthen how all of this works. For example, we are proposing a very clear distinction between the areas of political responsibility and executive responsibility. The commitment in the programme for Government makes it very clear that we will bring to an end the unacceptable executive practice where no record is kept of ministerial involvement with an issue and resulting decisions. We need clarity and that is an important commitment in the programme for Government. The tribunal has raised issues of company law and the need to address the matter of responsible behaviour. My Department has drafted a massive 1,400-section company law review. It includes a head that will set out new fiduciary duties for directors, which will represent an occasion to address this matter. My Department will need to decide whether we proceed with that legislation in its present format or seek to take out a subset for early implementation. In many other areas the programme for Government commits to real reform that will make a difference. As I have mentioned, the separating of the political decisions of Ministers from the executive decisions of implementation by the Secretary General will create a much clearer and better relationship. The introduction of legislation on whistleblowers will also give greater public confidence that the system will respond to any failings. This is an opportunity to make very significant changes. Of course people outside the House will be very frustrated that it has taken 14 years to produce this report. The programme for Government makes commitments to have better Dáil investigative powers, to deal with the spancelling of the Dáil as an investigative agency and to look at the new legislation for tribunals which has lain fallow on the Statute

827 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] Book — it was produced but never implemented. We need to address those and this is an opportunity to put down a clear line and change the culture of politics for the better.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan: The massive Moriarty report before us is an horrific reflection on the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, Mr. Denis O’Brien, the Fine Gael Party, the Depart- ment of Transport, Energy and Communications, and indeed the rainbow Government of the mid-1990s itself. In another of his poetic-type speeches the Taoiseach referred to key catchphr- ases of the McCracken, Mahon and other tribunals. He could have added another from the Moriarty report, namely “Denis was behind it”, as the conclusions of this report are certainly summarised in the phrase. At the outset let me salute Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty for his remarkable diligence, cour- age and great determination throughout the long lifetime of the Moriarty tribunal. Deputy Lowry referred to a Sunday Tribune poll of Deputies towards the end of the 30th Dáil asking if they had confidence in Mr. Justice Moriarty. I am proud to say that I was one of the 20% or so who answered the newspaper’s question in the affirmative. The very comprehensive and painstaking report Mr. Justice Moriarty has produced is a clear vindication of that confidence. I accept its well researched and strongly argued conclusions and on behalf of my constituents I thank Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team for their service to the nation. We have rightly had lengthy discussions about the great cost and duration of tribunals. I strongly favour the parliamentary reporter-style of Oireachtas investigations promoted by the Labour Party in the past and I admire the investigating magistrate-style of inquiries in civil law administrations such as France, Italy and Spain. Of course, we also now have the better focused commission of investigation-style inquiries under the McDowell legislation. As Dr. Elaine Byrne noted in a recent article in The Irish Times, the likely cost of the Moriarty, Flood and Mahon tribunals are still much lower than the billion euro or so of unpaid and evaded taxes revealed by tribunals such as that conducted by Mr. Justice Moriarty. The second GSM mobile licence was a licence to print money. Everybody knew it at the time. I remember the atmosphere at the start of my first Dáil, the 27th Dáil, with programme managers and various flunkies running around the Dáil with their ears glued to mobile phones and the constant refrain in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the media to the effect that the new technology and EU regulations meant the inevitable sale of Eircom and an exciting competitive fixed line and mobile market. It therefore beggars belief that the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and the rainbow coalition Government decided to issue a second GSM licence for derisory sums of between £5 million and £15 million. The system that was designed to sell off the second GSM licence is described by Mr. Justice Moriarty on page 1,062 of Volume 1 of the report as a “hybrid auction and beauty contest approach”. Yet, the process for the six applicants was essentially a beauty contest with all the serious difficulties of such competitions without the huge financial benefits which a simple auction would have brought the Irish people. I was the communications spokesman for the Labour Party in the 29th Dáil and it is clear that the auction approach has always ensured the absolute maximisation of revenue for the State for such valuable public commodities. A comprehensive 2001 review by the University of Virginia of the European mobile 3G universal mobile telecommunications system, for example, contrasts the beauty contest approach versus the auction approach. The report describes how the beauty contest approach with its “lack of transparency means that government-favoured firms will be more easily able to win”. It also states beauty contests

828 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements are in fact “tacit attempts by the government to provide state aid”. In fact, beauty contests appear to have most often been used in other states to favour an incumbent telecoms operator, which of course Esat was. In this case however, the Moriarty report clearly finds that the beauty contest approach favoured by the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, and the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications provided the circumstances whereby the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, by his “insidious and pervasive” influence helped to deliver the second GSM licence to Esat and Communicorp. The debacle of the sale of the second GSM licence is, in fact, a case study in the massive inherent flaws in a beauty contest style approach. The first auction of 3G licences in the UK had 150 rounds of bidding by 13 companies over seven weeks and the process raised $35 billion for the British Treasury. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, spoke of a “hermetically sealed competition process” and that the Moriarty tribunal finds that the process itself worked. In fact, the opposite of these two propositions is true. The trail of influence and delivery of key information to Esat and Mr. O’Brien is well documented in the report and the baffling and astonishing decision to change the quantitative weightings in Copenhagen in late September 1995 conferred a deeply unfair advantage on Esat. The profound differences in the project team clearly needed intense further research and deliberation, which did not happen. The leadership of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications appears in a very poor light in the report. The disgraceful decision to guillotine the process by the former Minster, Deputy Lowry, was outrageous and the then Secretary General John Loughrey allowed himself to be bamboozled by the Minister. The then Secretary General seemed more concerned with presenting the result than inquiring whether it was the correct one. Even after the announcement in October 1995, the deeply flawed process was haunted by the changes in the financial structure of the Esat bid following the involvement of Mr. Dermot Desmond. In many internal Labour Party debates I described Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as the two side of the same coin and argued strongly against going into Government with either, especially as a minority party. It is therefore no surprise that Mr. Justice Moriarty draws a similar analogy in regard to payments to Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry and to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. During the period of the issuance of this second GSM licence, Fine Gael was busy rebuilding its finances and raising millions from big business. Deputy Michael Lowry was the chair of Fine Gael trustees and worked closely with the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, and his then right- hand man, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny. It is in this context that the saga of the disgraceful $50,000 dollar contribution from Denis O’Brien through Telenor must be placed. Mr. O’Brien, who ironically was thought to be a Fianna Fáiler by the new Fine Gael Admini- stration, immediately made it his business to get close to Fine Gael upon its entry to Govern- ment, and hence the sorry saga investigated by Mr. Justice Moriarty began to enfold. Fine Gael’s handling of the $50,000 donation was of course disgraceful as was its efforts to conceal it from the tribunal for as long as possible. I have always believed that he who pays the piper calls the tune and hope that all corporate, including trade union, donations will be banned. In the lifetime of Deputy Lowry’s ministry, the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, did not seem to have these concerns, although he knew the Minister had availed of the tax amnesty. The earlier part of the Moriarty tribunal report recounts the detailed way that Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly identifies and proves the money trail that existed and led from the head of Esat Digifone, Mr. Denis O’Brien, in particular, to the former Minister, Deputy Lowry. Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly concludes that a number of significant payments including £150,000, £300,000 and a “benefit equivalent to a payment” for a £420,000 loan, were received by Deputy

829 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Thomas P. Broughan.] Lowry through complex transactions involving third parties or companies the source of which was Mr. Denis O’Brien. Mr. Justice Moriarty’s damning conclusion is that a “reasonable inference” can be assumed that these payments were connected to the public office that Deputy Lowry then held, in particular as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and with the sale of the GSM licence. There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Justice Moriarty has produced overwhelming evidence in this massive report to back up his key conclusions on the outrageous and completely unacceptable ongoing financial connections and payments between Deputy Lowry and Mr. Denis O’Brien of Esat Digifone which followed the award of what should have been a multi million pound licence. Mr. Justice Moriarty notes that Deputy Lowry summarily announced Esat Digifone as the successful bidder and on page 1,131 states: “The matter was not considered by Government until 26th October 1995, the day following the public announcement when it proceeded to Government merely to note the result already announced by Mr. Lowry”. Of course colleagues clearly rely on accurate information being provided to them by other colleagues in the Govern- ment system or on any board or organisation. Those of us who served on boards will realise that. It is very unfortunate that the Cabinet was not made aware of the “concerns of certain members of the Project Group”, as Mr. Justice Moriarty puts it including, “the significant departures which had been made from the evaluation methodology adopted prior to the closing date of the competitive process and possible consequences of those departures”. It is appalling, however, that a decision of this magnitude for a contract that was so valuable was announced at a Cabinet sub-committee called to examine aviation matters and including Deputy Lowry, the then Taoiseach John Bruton and then Ministers Dick Spring, Deputy Ruairí Quinn and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. It is reported that the Department of Finance opposed the beauty contest and wanted an auction. If this is the correct view, why did the Department and the then Minister, Deputy Quinn not insist on the auction route? Clearly the deep concerns of citizens about the fitness of purpose of the Department of Finance during the Celtic tiger bubble years will not be alleviated by this report. Of course recent reports have shown that Ministers were given correct advice in the Celtic tiger era but perversely chose to ignore it. Sadly, the conduct and conclusion of the 2G licence process again casts a poor reflection of the competence of the rainbow coalition Government. I have always been opposed to the practice of political donations from whatever source. Mr. Justice Moriarty’s report again highlights the appalling and pernicious effect of donations to political parties on Irish public life. From the recommendations section of the report, many citizens will angrily conclude that given the details of the corporate donations, there must be no continuation of the old Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael style politics as usual. A major good that can come from this shocking expose of another disgraceful episode in Irish public life if it is to end once and for all the destructive and pernicious influence of corporate donations on political parties and public life. In the concluding portion of the report, Mr. Justice Moriarty outlines a comprehensive series of recommendations that must be considered with the utmost urgency, given the gravity of the matters referred to. In terms of political donations, I have already indicated what action the judge believes should be taken. I hope that Mr. Justice Moriarty’s recommendations on strengthening company law in line with the 2006 UK Companies Act on additional implementation and enforcement measures as well a control of political donations and expenditure are adopted. There are a number of important recommendations in terms of the Revenue Commis-

830 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements sioners too, in particular the recommendation that there should be an amending statutory provision to ensure the total independence of the Revenue Commissioners. I welcome Mr. Justice Moriarty’s comprehensive and far-reaching report. I commend him and his team for delivering it and hope that the House and Oireachtas will act urgently on the recommendations in the report.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important debate. It would be very easy for many Members to cower and not participate. It is important that we contribute not just to the debate but to restoring the body politic to the people. I am conscious that this report paints those in power and those involved in the granting of the second mobile telephone licence in a very poor light. However, I am confident, given the speeches I heard yesterday and today from the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister, Deputy Bruton, that the new Government will show leadership, act on the recommendations of the report and that this will form the basis, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, of the rebuilding of the new Republic. That is what people seek and desire in their political representatives — that they act for the common good, for people, and serve not only the few but all the people. I am particularly pleased that the programme for Government contains a strong reform element. Apart from creating jobs, If the members of Cabinet do nothing else for the next five years but bring about meaningful political reform, they will have done the State a great service. I pay tribute to Mr. Justice Moriarty and his staff for the publication of the report and thank them for their work. It is important that this report is published. It is important that we have deliberations on this report. No matter how unpalatable, no matter how difficult for people to read or to see, it is important that arising from today we rebuild the trust with people. The speeches this morning of the Ministers, Deputies Rabbitte and Bruton, were honest. I listened to Deputy Bruton’s reply. He was a member of that Government. I know the Fine Gael members of that Government and they are decent, honest people, and so are its members of the Labour Party. The tribunal report exonerates the members of the Cabinet for their role in this. It is important that we pause and reflect, and act upon the report. Deputy Calleary made a good speech in which he mentioned the Abbeylara judgment. We must learn from the past and put the lessons into practice. If we do not reflect and act upon it, this report will have been a waste of time. God knows, it cost a great deal of money. The tribunal’s costs and duration were too great. That is my personal viewpoint as somebody who does not have a legal mind and who was not involved in politics as an elected representative until 2004. Something is not right when it takes 14 years or more for a tribunal report or others to come out into the public domain. There must be commonality. We must change the practice of the tribunals in taking this amount of time at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, an gnáth duine — the ordinary person footing the bill. The Taoiseach spoke in the House yesterday of the costs of the tribunals. The cost is mind- boggling as was the delay. This should not have taken 14 years. It cannot be allowed to be repeated. We must take on board the views of all Members of the House and people outside the House in establishing a new type of tribunal where it will not take 14 years to publish a report. This report presents an opportunity for us, as practising politicians, to reform how we do our business. The Evening Echo, in its editorial on Friday last, stated that the shocking fact is that the cost of the legal bills associated with the inquiry now stands at €45 million, that the taxpayer

831 Moriarty Tribunal 30 March 2011. Report: Statements

[Deputy Jerry Buttimer.] has paid for all of this and that this is something that must not be allowed recur. That is why it is important to seek common ground in ensuring that we do not come to this place again. This report provides an opportunity for reform. Calls for political reform is what we heard on the doorsteps, from Cavan-Monaghan to Mayo, Louth, Dublin and Cork, in campaigning for the last general election. Deputy Calleary is right that all politicians are not the same. Not all take money from developers or from persons who want to influence Government decisions. We must stand up for ourselves as politicians, in that we are here to serve, and do the will of, the people. I know most of the Members of this House and we all are decent and genuine, trying to do what is best for the people. That is why it is important that the commitment of the Government to ban corporate donations is fulfilled immediately. We must break the link between big business and government. The powerful elite cannot be allowed rule the roost and cannot be in cahoots with politicians anymore. We must learn from the past. We must move forward together to ensure that we do not revisit this type of scenario again. Otherwise, we will have failed the people who put is in here. The duty of the Government is to change the culture and ethos of the past and to learn from the mistakes. I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” I hope that those who are vested with the seals of office in Cabinet today will not abuse the power and trust that they have been given by the people and will work day and night to serve the good of the people. The people demand change. They seek reform and accountability. They want a new style of politics and of corporate governance in business and in the banking institutions. There has been a clear breakdown in society over the past two decades — be it in the church, in politics and in business. None of us in this House today should be embroiled in this scandal. I very much regret that my political party is mentioned in this report but I am extremely conscious that the report is quite clear — I am sorry Deputy Broughan has left the Chamber — in Chapter 62.04, regarding the donation from Telenor. It states: “That donation was unwelcome to the party, and was rejected by the party leader.” The report further states:

the Tribunal is satisfied that he [former Taoiseach John Bruton] sought to convey to Mr. Austin that acceptance of the donation was then entirely inappropriate.

The cheque was handed back, the then leader of Fine Gael, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, handed the file to the tribunal and my party took action against Deputy Lowry, removing him from Government and removing from the party of which he was a member, Fine Gael.

I compliment the Taoiseach for his leadership since the publication of the report and for handing the file to the relevant authorities. It is time action was taken, if it is necessary. The Govern- ment has committed to bringing about political reform and it cannot be merely a mantra. Those of us who are new to this House and to politics are conscious that the people want us to be proactive on political reform. Reform must come, be it in the shape of the banning of political donations, the registering of lobbyists, or a reduction in the number of TDs. We cannot allow a situation to develop that will lead us back here with another report similar to what we have today. We must move collectively to ensure that. This is not — to borrow Deputy Martin’s remarks — a Punch and Judy show. We are here, restoring trust and confidence in the body politic and that needs decisive and swift action. Does the Fianna Fáil Party share the commitment of the Government to ban corporate donations? Unless it does, it is not moving forward with us.

832 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Dara Calleary: We do.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The intersection of business in politics must be transparent and above reproach. As the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, stated in his remarks, business and politics together will only help us get out of this recession, but, if I may borrow the phrase, there can be no cosy cartels. I am confident that the Government will restore the credibility and the confidence of the people in the body politic.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)

Priority Questions

————

Family and Child Income Supports 19. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will elaborate on the commitment in the Programme for Government to examine family and child income supports and if all cuts in child benefit are absolutely precluded by the Programme [6052/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Family and child income support payments both assist parents in contributing to the costs associated with raising children and play an important role in the objective of reducing child poverty. The Government is conscious that these payments are an important source of income for all families, particularly during a time of recession and unemployment. A value for money review of child income support policies and associated programmes was published by my Department in November 2010. The review covered policy around child benefit, qualified child increases and the family income supplement payments, as well as aspects of some other child-related payments. My Department is also undertaking some follow-up work, including a consultation seminar held yesterday with interest groups on the review which gathered the views of stakeholders as to the future direction of policy on child income supports. Creating jobs and tackling poverty are two of the key challenges we face. It is essential that our tax and social protection systems play their part in addressing these problems. As we stressed in the preamble to our programme for Government, in order to address the very substantial problems that we face, it is essential that new ways, new approaches and new thinking will form the constant backdrop to the work of the Govern- ment. For this reason the Government will seek to benefit from the expertise of a commission on tax and social welfare that will consider a number of issues arising out of the operation of the tax and social welfare systems. The Government will consider the scope of the commission’s work and the practical arrangements around its operation and an announcement will be made on this as soon as possible. The Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair, balanced, and which recognises the need for social solidarity. In addressing all aspects of the public finances, it will seek to ensure that resources are allocated fairly and that less well-off families are protected in so far as possible. Decisions on the child benefit payment rate are a matter to be decided in a budgetary context.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I wish the Minister well in her new portfolio and know she will embrace the work of the Department as much as she embraced her appointment. Notwithstand- ing my tongue in cheek, I wish her well.

833 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Billy Kelleher.]

I welcome the Minister’s response. However, will she clarify what is proposed with regard to the commission on social welfare, when it is expected to be established and when it is expected to report? This is a critical part of the overall review of social welfare. Value for money reviews were published last year and these indicated clearly there would be a change in thinking from the Department. During the election, the issue of further reductions, in child benefit in particular, was considered a red line issue. In view of the programme for Government and the negotiations that have taken place since then, is it still the view of the Minister and of the Government that child benefit remains a red letter issue? The Fine Gael proposals with regard to less waste, lower taxes and stronger Government are expected to deliver savings of approximately €250 million in the area of child benefit by 2014. How does the Minister square that circle in the context of trying to retain dependants’ social welfare payments and at the same time achieve the Government target of saving up to a quarter of €1 billion in the area of child benefit? This target suggests there will be some form of reduction in child benefit or the family income supplement. Otherwise, the circle will not be squared.

Deputy Joan Burton: I thank Deputy Kelleher for his good wishes. I am unsure whether Fianna Fáil has decided on its spokespersons, but I welcome the Deputy here today. The programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain social welfare rates. I cannot at this time give an explicit commitment on child benefit rates, as specific decisions on payment rates are made in a budgetary context. However, the Government considers it a priority that a more fundamental examination of our system of family and child income supports is required. It is for that reason we will ask the commission on taxation and social welfare, when established, to examine and make recommendations on these payments, with particular emphasis on addressing the cycle of child poverty. These are the commitments in the programme for Government. In the context of the commission on taxation and social welfare, the programme sets out a number of areas which will be examined, including the issue of child and family income supports and the issue of the self-employed and their relationship to the social insurance system.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: When does the Minister envisage the establishment of the commission and when does she envisage it reporting? Will the commission operate on a broad consultation basis or on the basis of the expertise of the appointees to it?

Deputy Joan Burton: The Department and I are currently reviewing the establishment of the commission and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement in the near future. I hope the issue of child and family income supports will be the first matter to be considered. As the Deputy knows, a great deal of work has been done in this area down the years and I hope the commission will be in a position to report within a reasonable timeframe.

Habitual Residency Regulations 20. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the changes she will make to the operation of the habitual residency rule which is acting as a barrier for many returning emigrants, and family carers in particular, from accessing social welfare and the reason there was no mention of this issue in the Programme for Government. [6136/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The habitual residence condition applies to social assistance payments and to child benefit. The determination of a person’s habitual residence is made in accordance with five factors which are set out in legislation, as follows: the length and continuity of resi-

834 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions dence in the State or in any other particular country; the length and purpose of any absence from the State; the nature and pattern of the person’s employment; the person’s main centre of interest; and the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances. These five factors have been derived from European Court of Justice case law. EU rules prevent discrimination on nationality grounds in relation to social security, so it is not possible to exempt a particular category of Irish citizens, such as returning emigrants, from the habitual residence condition, either in general or for carer’s allowance, without extending the same treatment to all EU nationals. However, the guidelines regarding determination of habitual residence address the issue of returning emigrants very specifically. The guidelines state: “A person who had previously been habitually resident in the State and who moved to live and work in another country and then resumes his or her long-term residence in the State may be regarded as being habitually resident immediately on his or her return to the State.” In determining the main centre of interest in the case of returning emigrants, deciding officers take account of the following — the purpose of the return, for example where a foreign residence permit has expired; the applicant’s stated intentions as to why he or she is returning; verified arrangements which have been made in regard to returning on a long-term basis, for example, transfer of financial accounts and any other assets; termination of residence based entitlements in the other country; assistance from Safe Home or a similar programme to enable Irish emigrants to return permanently; length and continuity of the previous residence in the State; the record of employment or self employment in another State; and whether he or she has maintained links with the previous residence and can be regarded as resuming his or her previous residence rather than starting a new period of residence. This is generally sufficient to enable the deciding officer to determine whether their present circumstances in Ireland indicate a temporary visit or habitual residence.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Comhghairdeas don Aire as an post a fuair sí.Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith linn ar an ghnó rí-thábhachtach seo. More than 650 Irish citizens were refused social welfare payments last year on the grounds of the habitual residency condition. That figure was only for part of the year. In the Labour Party election manifesto, promises were made that the habitual residency condition rule would be reformed to facilitate returning emigrants. When and how will those reforms be brought about? What will the Government do in the interim for those 650 people? Many of them were made destitute by the current rule. Some of those excluded were Irish citizens who never emigrated, as they were from Belfast, Derry and other parts of the Six Counties. Why is there no mention whatsoever of the habitual residency condition in the programme for Government? The Crosscare Migrant Project has encountered cases of young emigrants who had left Ireland 18 months ago, but who were told on returning that they do not satisfy the conditions. More and more Irish people are emigrating, but does the Minister understand that by failing to alter the habitual residency condition for those Irish emigrants, she is telling them to get out and stay out?

An Ceann Comhairle: There is one minute left for this question.

Deputy Joan Burton: When representing the Government in the UK for St. Patrick’s Day, I had the opportunity to meet a large number of organisations dealing with Irish emigrants living there, including those who return home and those who intend to return home. All I can say is that fewer than 3% of the applications for carer’s allowance are refused on the grounds of habitual residence. The Deputy referred to the number of refusals last year — it was 618 — but I was advised by the Department that a large percentage of those were people who did not

835 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Joan Burton.] have an Irish passport. Two hundred and six of the 618 making an application were international people. There is an ongoing dialogue between the Department and emigrant organisations dealing with people in the UK. The guidelines are very specific. The main problem relates to this definition of centre of interest, and whether somebody is definitively coming back to Ireland. To respond to the Deputy’s point about people from the Belfast area, there are often queries about persons who may still be claiming entitlements, or have entitlements, under the system in the North. These matters generally can be addressed if the information is given very clearly, and if the centre of interest is defined. Most emigrants who return home really do not encounter much difficulty in respect of the habitual residence condition.

Family Support Services 21. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Social Protection when she intends to reverse the cuts in carer’s allowance implemented by the previous Government; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6211/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: Despite the recent cuts experienced by carers under 66, over the past decade weekly payment rates to carers have greatly increased, qualifying conditions for carer’s allowance have significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer’s benefit, half-rate carer’s allowance and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended. The carer’s allowance rate for carers over 66 years of age has not been changed and remains at €239. The rate of carer’s allowance for someone under 66 is €204. Recipients of carer’s allowance are also eligible for household benefits, free travel and the respite care grant. The means test for carer’s allowance has been significantly eased over the years, and is now one of the most generous means tests in the social welfare system, most notably with regard to spouse’s earnings. Since April 2008, the income disregard has been €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. This means that a couple with two children can earn in the region of €37,200 per year and qualify for the maximum rate of carer’s allowance, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits. A couple with an income in the region of €60,400 can still qualify for a minimum payment, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits package. These levels surpass the Towards 2016 commitment to ensure that those on average industrial earnings continue to qualify for a full carer’s allowance. From June 2005, the annual respite care grant was extended to all carers providing full-time care to a person who needs such care, regardless of their income. The rate of the respite care grant has also been increased to €1,700 per year in respect of each care recipient since June 2008. The Government is committed to maintaining social welfare rates at their current level. Any changes will be in the context of discussions on the budget.

Deputy Seamus Healy: I concur with previous speakers in congratulating the Minister on her appointment and wishing her well for the future. If my eyes were closed, I would have thought it was a Minister from the previous Govern- ment who was giving the reply to this question. We are dealing with the one of the most vulnerable sections of society. I understood that the Government was going to be fair and balanced in dealing with the recession, and that the less well off were going to be protected. We are dealing with people who are earning at most about €1.20 per hour——

836 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

An Ceann Comhairle: Could the Deputy pose a question please? We have a time limit.

Deputy Seamus Healy: Is the Minister aware that carers earn about €1.20 per hour and work 168 hours per week? Is she aware that 160,000 carers work about 3.7 million hours per week and save the State about €2.5 billion per year? Is it not reasonable that this section of our community should be exempt from any cutbacks? There is a huge contrast between how carers are being dealt with and how very wealthy people get away with paying no wealth tax, even though the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the country have some €250 billion in assets. Carers have suffered a €16.30 per week cut over the last two budgets, so they should surely be exempt. Would the Minister reconsider reversing these cuts immediately?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister has one minute to reply.

Deputy Joan Burton: As of 18 March, there were approximately 50,000 people in receipt of carer’s allowance, over 21,000 of whom work on the half-rate carer’s allowance. The cost of the various payments and income supports that are made to carers comes to approximately €658 million. The Deputy is right to identify the economic crisis caused by the banks and some very wealthy people in this country, and by the actions of the previous Government. It is our proposal in this Government to get people back to work. We value the work and the contribution of the carers very highly. As we regenerate the economy and get people back to work, we will then be in a position to improve the situation for carers, who do very valuable work in Irish society.

Deputy Seamus Healy: Can I ask a supplementary question?

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry, but the time has expired.

Social Welfare Appeals 22. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans in relation to the commitment in the Programme for Government to divert staff from elsewhere in the public service to clear the social welfare appeals backlog; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6053/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The need for additional resources to deal with the significant increase in the number of appeals received by the social welfare appeals office has been recognised by the Department of Social Protection. The annual intake of appeals grew from 14,070 in 2007 to 32,432 in 2010, which was an increase of 18,362 or 130.5%. It appears that some 30,000 appeals will be received in 2011. I am pleased to inform Deputies that nine additional appointments have been made to the office in recent weeks. Three of these appointments are permanent assignments and six are temporary assignments for a period of two years, subject to review. They will augment the three appointments that were made to the office in 2010 and bring the total number of appeals officers serving in the office to 29. The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2010 facilitated the use of experienced retired former appeals officers, strictly on a temporary basis, to help to bring the backlogs under control. As a result, eight such officers have been employed since July of last year, which represents the equivalent of three additional full-time staff. The quasi-judicial nature and complexity of the work means there can be a relatively long lead-in time before new appeals officers become fully competent to deal with the full range of cases coming to the office. In that regard and to ensure there is no loss of output during the training period of

837 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Joan Burton.] newly appointed officers, the retired former appeals officers will continue to assist in the office until the end of this year. In line with a commitment in the programme for Government, the matter of providing further additional staff will be kept under continuous review. In conjunction with the provision of extra staff, the chief appeals officer is undertaking a review of the current operating model with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals, while ensuring any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of people who are appealing and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I welcome the decision to continue to avail of the services of retired appeals officers, which is a worthwhile practice. The Minister referred to the quasi-judicial nature and complexity of many of the cases with which the office deals. I understand that training is critical in that context. I am concerned that the proposal in the programme for Government to reduce by 25,000 the number of people employed in the public sector and the Civil Service could affect the increased appointments that will be needed over the next few years. Although the Government has an ambitious programme for getting Ireland back to work, the reality is that many people will continue to appeal social welfare decisions. Every Deputy in this House makes regular representations to appeals officers. The number of such representations will stay at the current high level, at least, for the foreseeable future. Is the Minister satisfied that the office will have an appropriate number of competent staff to deal with an increased number of appeals?

Deputy Joan Burton: I assure the Deputy that since I took office, I met the staff who deal with social welfare appeals. I did so as a matter of priority in order to examine ways and means of improving the service and the speed of the service. Every Deputy in the House is aware that this is a critical area, particularly for those who have lost jobs or businesses and are looking to the Department of Social Protection for income support. The provision of additional staffing is among the areas at which we are looking. That is now in train. Having spoken to officials in the Department, I am confident that the extra staff will make a significant difference. In addition, we need to provide for more summary appeals. Deputies will be familiar with this aspect of the matter. Some difficulties arise from a failure to provide the proper documentation, etc., that is required. If we had a better system of monitoring whether application forms are fully completed, it would be possible to undertake a summary examination of each file. Given that 42% of cases are successful on appeal, perhaps this would be the best way of improving the throughput and reducing the backlog.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Does the Minister accept that appeals officers should be considered as front line staff? In the context of the proposed reductions in the public sector and the Civil Service, will she make the case for appeals officers to be considered as front line staff, like doctors, teachers, nurses and gardaí?

Deputy Joan Burton: I will make this a priority. I have already held discussions with senior and management staff on ways and means of improving the speed with which appeals are handled. As it is a quasi-judicial process, a great deal of care has to be taken when conducting appeals. I am quite confident that the appointment of additional staff and the improvement of procedures, which is being examined by the chief appeals officer at the moment, will result in a reduction of the backlog. I hope that will happen. The backlog has developed in the context of the unfortunate expansion in appeals, which is a consequence of the increase in the levels of unemployment and business losses.

838 Priority 30 March 2011. Questions

Social Welfare Code 23. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cut of 4% to the so called working age social welfare rates and the cut to child benefit introduced by the previous Government in Budget 2011 and if so when [6137/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: This Government took office in the context of a profound banking, fiscal and jobs crisis and the decision to seek the external financial assistance that has been provided by the EU and the IMF. The crisis was caused by the reckless mismanagement of the economy by previous Governments and the destruction of significant parts of the Irish banking system. As part of its response to the crisis, the last Government reduced weekly and monthly welfare rates of payment in the last two budgets. The challenge for the new Government is unlike the challenge faced by any previous Government. Many people in society are facing hardship. The Government’s priority is to get our economy moving, restore confidence, fix our banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. The success of our economic plans will lay the foundation for the rest of our agenda for change. Sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for economic stability and growth. To this end, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. If we are to enhance international credibility, it is appropriate to stick to the aggregate adjustment set out in the national recovery plan. Accordingly, appropriate levels of social welfare rates will be considered in the context of budget 2012. The Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair and balanced and recognises the need for social solidarity. In this regard, it is important to note that the programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain social welfare rates. In the meantime, the Government’s priority is to develop a strategy to allow job growth and sustainable enterprise. This is central to any recovery strategy. During its first 100 days, the Government will introduce and resource a series of measures designed to reduce unemployment and get Ireland working again. These will include measures to increase significantly the number of training, education and work experience opportunities and wide range of other initiatives. I look forward to developing them with my colleagues over the next few weeks so they can be implemented as quickly as possible.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I do not know whether the Minister remembers the comments made by her colleague, the current Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, in the wake of last year’s budget. As her party’s then spokesperson on social protection, she said the cuts to social welfare rates, including child benefit, were “a blatant and unjustified attack” on the weakest people in society.

An Ceann Comhairle: A question, please.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Does the Minister recall that Deputy Shortall also said that “the Government has lost all sense of the fact that carers, widows, people with disabilities, single parents and the unemployed depend on their weekly payments for their very survival”, that “the decision to cut these basic rates cannot be defended”, that “families 3o’clock who are already struggling to keep their heads above water will undoubtedly go under if the Minister persists with these measures” and that “it is difficult to fathom how these measures will help recovery”? Does she agree with Deputy Shortall’s correct assessment of these cuts? If so, will she consider reversing them and when will she do so? Has the Labour Party, like the previous Government, lost all sense of the fact that people depend on these payments for their survival? According to CSO figures, one quarter of all

839 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.] households are now in arrears on their bills and the consumer price index is up 2.2% on February 2010. Does the Minister agree that the Government must intervene to restore social welfare rates to their 2010 levels at least and seek to increase them according the increase in the CPI?

Deputy Joan Burton: Let us be clear about the matter. This Government took office almost three years after Ireland’s extreme banking crisis began on St. Patrick’s Day in 2008, when a collapse in the share price of Anglo Irish Bank signalled the beginning of the economic collapse of this country, the closure of many businesses and the loss of employment for tens of thousands of people. The previous Government’s actions generated an unprecedented economic and social crisis and it also reduced social welfare supports. Both parties in this Government are committed to protecting the vulnerable and forging a new Ireland built on fairness and equal citizenship. Our objective is that by the end of our term Ireland will be recognised as a modern, fair, socially inclusive and equal society supported by a productive and prosperous economy. This Government is determined to pursue a deficit reduction strategy and we have to take into account the overall constraints which result from the agreement the previous Government entered into with the IMF and the EU. Our immediate priority is to introduce a range of job measures designed to reduce reliance on welfare supports. We will investigate social welfare rates later this year in the context of the budget and, unlike the previous Government, we are committed to maintaining payment rates. As the economy begins to grow and we sort out the banking crisis, we will continue to find ways of protecting the most vulnerable and needy in Irish society.

Other Questions

————

Social Welfare Code 24. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection the steps she will take to rectify the anomalous situation whereby the spouses of persons in receipt of disability allowance are not allowed to avail of community employment but rather they must apply for a separate payment in their own right and wait a year before they can qualify for a CE place, in view of the fact that no recognition of their period of unemployment is given if their spouse was claiming for them [6016/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The Deputy will be aware that an unemployed person who qualifies for the community employment programme under jobseeker’s allowance, jobseeker’s benefit or farm assist but who does not wish take up an offer may be able to transfer the eligibility to his or her spouse. In this regard, qualified adult dependants aged 25 and over of eligible persons may avail of the spousal swap option. This involves the person exchanging his or her community employment place with his or her dependant, who will inherit the age and entitlements of the eligible person. This ensures that there is no loss incurred in their relative entitlements as a result of the exchange. Under the current means by which the eligibility criteria for community employment are implemented, the position outlined for spousal swaps differs for disability allowance. This relates to the intrinsic link between the disability payment and the claimant. It is also unlikely that any financial advantage would result for a claimant in receipt of disability allowance as the earnings disregard would not be applied to his or her spouse’s income given that the rehabilitative nature of the employment can only apply to the claimant. Under community

840 Other 30 March 2011. Questions employment eligibility criteria it is a matter of policy that adult dependants of persons with a disability are not eligible unless they become eligible in their own right, as is also the case for all other eligible categories. This generally means a 12 month period in receipt of a qualifying payment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This is a strange situation because if the qualified adult dependent claimed in his or her own right, the State would probably incur greater costs in the longer term. I am trying to get recognition for qualified adult dependents. The number of people who would avail of opportunities for retraining or community employment is not large. I ask the Minister to investigate whether it is possible to change the rules on spousal swaps for those on disability allowances or qualified adult dependents who are stuck in this situation or at least alter the qualifying criteria for community employment schemes so that qualified spouses can take up places even where they have no time in their own right.

Deputy Joan Burton: Disability allowance is a means tested payment for people with specified disabilities whose incomes fall below certain limits and who are between 16 and 66 years of age. Eligibility is subject to a medical examination and a means test. Under the community employment eligibility criteria, adult dependents of persons in receipt of disability allowances are not considered eligible unless they qualify in their own right. This rationale is based on the fact that the eligibility of the disability claimant is specifically linked to his or her physical or other disability and, therefore, is not transferable under the other rules to a dependent spouse, partner or cohabitant. The circumstances giving rise to eligibility for disability allowances are considered to be significantly different to those of persons in receipt of jobseeker’s benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and farm assist, in which regard swaps are facilitated. I undertake to review the matter and will ask my officials to examine it in the context of the announcements we hope to make in respect of the jobs budget.

Departmental Offices 25. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if there is any planned changes to the locations of local social welfare offices; if she has satisfied herself that considerations of ease of access by local persons have been prioritised and the steps she will take in this regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5999/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: My Department currently operates a network of 63 local offices throughout the country. These offices are responsible for administering the jobseeker’s payments schemes, one parent family payments and employment supports. They also provide a range of support services to assist groups such as the long-term unemployed, lone parents and people with disabilities to return to the active labour market and an information service for the general public. The significant increase in the live register over several years has placed additional pressures on our local offices in terms of providing a satisfactory service to the public. The Department accepts that some of its buildings are not ideal. My Department is working closely with the Office of Public Work to acquire new local office accommodation in several locations throughout the country. These include Balbriggan, Swords, Mallow, Killarney, Portlaoise, Loughrea, Castlebar, Navan, Newbridge and Bantry. An annual provision of €2.5 million has been included in my Department’s capital budget over the next three years to support the OPW in this task.

841 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Joan Burton.]

In choosing a location for a local office, special consideration is given to its proximity to commercial centres and to other Government and public offices, the availability of public transport for customers and the availability of suitable car parking facilities in the area. In addition all the new offices are designed to comply fully with the statutory requirements for disabled access. My Department is fully aware of the difficulties experienced by some customers in accessing local offices and is continually streamlining its procedures with a view to minimising the number of visits required by customers to process their entitlements. If the Deputy has concerns about particular offices, I will have them examined.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister mentioned that the Department sought to acquire such buildings through the OPW. Will some of these be rented from companies such as Treas- ury Holdings, which owe the State a great deal of money through NAMA and so on, or will they be purchased outright by the Department? The Minister made the point that the Department is aware of some of the changes needed. Currently, some social welfare offices have no cover for those exposed to the elements while queueing in inclement weather. In some cases, toilet access is lacking, and there are no seats in some offices. I hope this will be rectified if new offices are purchased. I ask the Minister to find out whether there are plans to close the Thomas Street social welfare office and move its clients to the office in Bishop’s Square, Dublin 8, while most of the existing clients in Bishop’s Square who come from the Dublin 12 area are moved to a premises on the Long Mile Road. Changes of this type can be problematic because of access to bus routes and so on. I ask the Department to be mindful that some areas, even those which are close by, may be inaccessible to many people because of changes to Dublin Bus routes.

Deputy Joan Burton: I have taken a close interest in the works of NAMA and all its complex relationships with property developers, buildings and so on. I will ask the Department if any such arrangements are being made for the acquisition of premises, whether for purchase or lease, but I have not been advised of that. I will make inquiries and pass the information on to the Deputy. As the Deputy knows, property matters in general are handled by the OPW on behalf of the Department. I take into account the Deputy’s remarks about people using the services of the Department in buildings without adequate space and so on. This is related to the very large unemployment rate of 14.7%, as announced by the CSO. The Department is anxious to address this issue. I appreciate that Thomas Street is a suitable location for a social welfare office because it is accessible by so many bus routes, even if the availability of parking is not brilliant. I know people value the Thomas Street offices. I am not aware of a move from Bishop’s Square to the Long Mile Road, but I will make inquiries. While the Long Mile Road might be all right for people with cars, there might not be so many accessible bus services.

Social Welfare Code 26. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will maintain the age of eligibility for the disability allowance at 16 [6008/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: In general, the social welfare system processes payments from the age of 18. The minimum age limit of 16 was established in 1953 as a qualifying condition for the disabled person’s maintenance allowance and the age limit was maintained when that scheme was replaced by the disability allowance scheme in 1996.

842 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

The review of the disability allowance scheme published in November 2010 recommended increasing the qualifying age to 18 years. The review noted that the payment of disability allowance at age 16 carries with it the risk of creating a dependency on social welfare from a very young age and can generate disincentives for people to take up education, training or employment opportunities. A study conducted on the impact of the payment of the allowance from age 16 on retention rates in second-level education indicated that it would, at a minimum, act as a negative factor if a path out of education was being considered. The payment of the allowance at such a young age also gives rise to issues relating to the control and use of the payment, about which views have been expressed by parents. In some circumstances, parents and guardians will be the financial agents for people with disabilities in the 16 to 18 age group, and the income may effectively be regarded as household income rather than as an income support for the individual concerned. Equally, there are issues with regard to the capacity of some vulnerable 16 year old people with disabilities to manage funds of this type. The question also arises as to whether it is appropriate, in terms of equity of treatment of all social protection recipients, to pay disability allowance at age 16 but other means-tested working-age schemes at age 18. While cognisant of the findings of the review, I am conscious of the concerns raised some years ago when a proposal to increase the age limit to 18 was introduced and subsequently withdrawn by a previous Minister in my Department. Notably, there was an issue with regard to the expectations of families that additional income support would arise once their children had reached the age of 16. I will consider all of the issues involved carefully before reaching any decisions on this sensitive matter.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I note what the Minister has stated. The value-for-money review of the disability allowance scheme is quite a detailed report which was produced by the Depart- ment only in November 2010. The recommendations have far-reaching consequences, and while some of the proposals are positive, others are potentially negative, including the one highlighted in the question, which would affect many families with a member who is eligible for disability allowance at the age of 16. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this but, even allowing for the extension of domiciliary care allowance to the age of 18, which would make up some of the shortfall, the change would result in a cut in income of up to €440 per month for some households. This is a substantial amount for any family; in fact, it would halve the social protection payment for the claimants involved. Domiciliary care allowance is €309 per month, compared to the maximum personal rate of disability allowance, which is €188 per week. Does the Minister share my concerns? I am not asking for a review of a review, but I ask her to consider, when implementing the review, an increase in the domiciliary care allowance to eliminate the shortfall, which in certain circumstances could be €440 per month.

Deputy Joan Burton: I thank the Deputy for his comments. When the Joint Committee on Social Protection recommences, this may be a matter that the Deputy, with all his experience, can raise for discussion. There are 1,926 recipients of disability allowance aged between 16 and 18. This represents about 1.9% of the total number of people receiving disability allowance. The total spend on disability allowance for people between 16 and 18 is €18.8 million. As the Deputy said, it is a significant amount of money. One must also take account of the projected increase in the number of recipients. We are talking about the difference between paying the domiciliary care allowance until the child concerned reaches the age of 18 and the cost of transferring people to disability allowance at age 16.

843 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

[Deputy Joan Burton.]

Any change to the qualifying age would affect new claimants only — that is, existing claimants would continue to receive disability allowance even if they are under 18. Domiciliary care allowance will be paid up to age 18; currently, as the Deputy said, it ceases at age 16. There are currently 3,600 children of domiciliary care allowance recipients who are aged 14 or 15, and all of these claimants would migrate to disability allowance on reaching the age of 16. I would be concerned if there were a disincentive to a child involved staying on in school, education or training. This is a sensitive issue and should be discussed at greater length, perhaps at committee level when they have been established.

Child Support 27. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to reform the rules governing child benefit specifically as regards to non-resident children; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6012/11]

44. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will raise the issue of payment of child benefit in respect of non-resident children at EU level as stated in the Programme for Government [5978/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 27 and 44 together. The social security rights of people moving around the EU are governed by EU regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009. These have been in existence in one form or another since 1959 and are designed to co-ordinate the social security systems of the various member states so that people and their families are not disadvantaged when they move within the EU. A key principle of the co-ordination system is that persons moving to different member states are subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits as the nationals of those member states. With few exceptions, it is the country of employment which receives the social security contributions and which is generally responsible for the payment of benefits. Irish child benefit is classed as a family benefit with specific rules governing the payment of such benefits. EU nationals who come to work in Ireland, and who pay Irish social security contributions, are entitled to receive child benefit in respect of their families, even if the family resides in another EU member state. The equality provisions of the regulations require these payments are made at the same rates applicable to a person whose family is resident in Ireland. These provisions are seen as important in an EU context for the role they play in encouraging and facilitating the free movement of EU citizens. As stipulated in the programme for Government, the Government intends to raise the issue of child benefit in respect of non-resident children at EU level and seek to have the entitlement modified to reflect the cost of living where a child is resident. This is a major departure from the current rules and must be approached in a cautious and sensitive manner. The normal procedure for amending EU legislation is that a formal proposal be put forward by the European Commission which is then discussed and refined at various working parties and groups before being approved by a Council of Ministers. The proposal is then considered by the European Parliament in consultation with the Council. To make progress on the commitment in the programme for Government, it will be necessary to enlist the support of other countries and the European Commission. I am considering the best way of initiating this process.

844 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Is the Minister aware that the cost of child benefit payments to non-resident children in 2010 came just to €15 million, 0.1% of the Department’s overall €20 billion budget? With the downturn in the economy and the subsequent return of many EU nationals to their home states, this figure will continue to decrease. The programme for Government commits to seeking a change on this benefit payment in the EU. Has contact been made yet with the Commission in this regard? As a former finance spokesperson, does the Minister believe it is wise to risk getting other member states’ backs up over this benefit when her Cabinet colleagues are seeking an agreement on reducing Ireland’s bailout rate?

Deputy Billy Kelleher: This issue has been used appallingly and with racist undertones by various groupings opposed to Europe and migration. I am concerned such an approach has become pervasive in our society. All politicians have heard those claims on the airwaves and elsewhere that billions in euro are paid out in social welfare payments to children not residing in the State when it is actually only €15 million. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh pointed out, the cost is being further reduced because of returning EU nationals to their home states. This benefit is not a huge drain on the social welfare budget and its provision and cost should not be blown out of proportion. Changes to the benefit and its rate would require negotiations with all 27 EU member states. The first key point that will be made in such discussions will be that Ireland should reduce its child benefit rates anyway. Due to our dependence on EU funding and support for broader Government spending, such discussions could also open up a Pandora’s box in other areas.

Deputy Joan Burton: Child benefit and other such supports are paid as direct payments to parents. In many EU member states, similar direct payments are far lower, some at even less than €20 a month, because of a lower cost of living or that child care and preschool education is provided by the State rather than through a direct payment to the parent. If a worker here has a child resident in another country, the question arises as to whether there should be some reflection of the cost of living in the payments that child receives from the State. Our EU partners are telling us through the Troika and the International Monetary Fund to achieve value for money in social welfare spending. This is important when considering the spend on child benefit which is significant to families and children, particularly at this time of mass unemployment. The payments should be spent on children in this country as far as is possible. In 2007, the amount paid in respect of children resident in other EU countries was €4.7 million but by 2008 it had risen to €20.9 million. In 2009, it was reduced to €19 million and to €15.4 million in 2010. This was largely due to immigrants returning to their home countries and the expiry of entitlements. It is appropriate to examine this spending area in conjunction with our EU partners. Many of them spend money directly on preschool and child care facilities. It must be remembered that the focus of the child benefit payment is primarily the child and the child in their family or other setting in which they are. The provision of subsidised or free child care through the State or local authority would be an enormous benefit, particularly when people are already spending up to €200 a week on child care. I think it appropriate to discuss this. It is important to do so and to discuss the matter with our European partners. Child benefit is particularly important to mothers and women. We do not want to undermine the principle of the payment of universal benefits but it is appropriate to seek that the payment is made to children resident in this country.

845 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Nobody disagrees with the views expressed by the Minister on the matter of children raised outside the State receiving child benefit from the State. People canvassing during the general election came across the view that billions of euro are being transferred from the State to other states. These views are being encouraged by those who have ulterior motives in trying to promote dissent and racism in our communities. I experienced this in Cork, where there is a view that billions are being transferred from the State. When discussing this, we should point out that while €15 million is a sizeable sum, in the context of the overall spending on social welfare it is not the massive amount sometimes portrayed by people. When we are speaking about it, we should try to keep it in context because it creates tensions in some areas and people use it for this purpose.

Deputy Joan Burton: The total payments for the past three years were approximately €56 million. In the overall child benefit budget, that may not seem like a lot of money but to people relying on social welfare income, €56 million is a lot of money. If we are to retain confidence in the social welfare contract between the citizen and the State, we must ensure we can tell people that the payments are appropriate and that, particularly in this case, payments benefit the children. At the back of some people’s minds, there is the question about whether these payments are verified and whether they go to the benefit of the children in other countries. The Department carries out regular checks and requires certification that the children involved exist and are resident where they are advised as being resident. It is important to eliminate social welfare fraud so that Irish citizens have confidence that the taxes they pay when working are used in an appropriate way, particularly to benefit children resident in this country.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: Do we have any idea how much money is coming into the State from other countries?

Social Welfare Appeals 28. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection the current average and longest waiting times for social welfare appeals against refusals under the various schemes [6010/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The current average times to process social welfare appeals, by scheme, based on figures for 2010 are given in the detailed table following this reply, which I will not read out unless Deputy Kelleher really wants me to. The figures include cases revised by deciding officers of the Department in addition to those decided by appeals officers. There are no figures readily available for the longest waiting times in each scheme. I am informed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that the overall average waiting time for an appeal dealt with by way of a summary decision in 2010 was 27 weeks, while the average time to process an oral hearing was almost 46 weeks. These processing times are calculated from the registration date of the appeal to the date of its finalisation. These include all activities during this period including time spent in the Department for comments by the deciding officer on the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant and any further investigation, examination or assessment by the Department’s inspectors and medical assessors that is deemed necessary. A considerable period of time is added to the process when an oral hearing is required because of the logistics involved in the oral hearing. In order to be fair to all appellants, the appeals are dealt with in strict chronological order. There has been a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office between 2007, when the intake was 14,070, and 2010, when the intake rose to 32,432. The Department estimates some 30,000 appeals will be lodged this year. The Department has made nine additional appointments to the office in recent weeks. Of these,

846 Other 30 March 2011. Questions three appointments are permanent assignments and six are temporary assignments for a period of two years, subject to review. These assignments will augment the three appointments made to the office in 2010, bringing the total number of appeals officers serving in the office to 29. In addition, since July 2010, eight retired appeals officers, equating to a further three full-time officers, have been assisting on a strictly temporary basis with the backlog of appeals and it is intended that they will be employed until the end of this year. Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Average time take to process appeals by scheme in 2010

Adoptive Benefit 32.6 Blind Pension 32.1 Carers Allowance 29.9 Carers Benefit 25.4 Child Benefit 51.5 Disability Allowance 35.0 Illness Benefit 37.4 Domiciliary Care 29.7 Deserted Wives Benefit 31.5 Farm Assist 30.7 Bereavement Grant 21.4 Family Income Supplement 21.6 Homemakers 15.3 Invalidity Pension 40.9 Liable Relatives 22.9 One Parent Family Payment 30.2 Maternity Benefit 22.4 State Pension (Contributory) 31.2 State Pension (Non-Cont) 35.6 State Pension (Transition) 23.7 Occupational Injury Benefit 39.2 Occupational Injury Ben (Med) 37.6 Disablement Pension 34.4 Death Benefit (Pension) 69.6 Incapacity Supplement 26.9 Guardian’s Payment (Con) 35.8 Guardian’s Payment (Non Con) 27.3 Pre-Retirement Allowance 6.5 Jobseeker’s Allow (Means) 30.1 Jobseeker’s Allowance 28.1 Jobseeker’s Benefit 26.0 Respite Care Grant 32.9 Insurability of Employment 41.3 Supplementary Welfare All 19.3 Treatment Benefits 38.8 Widow’s Pension (Con) 37.2 Widow’s Pension (Non Con) 32.8 Widows Parent Grant 20.9

847 Other 30 March 2011. Questions

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Domiciliary care allowance is listed in the table. Before the election, I was told the appeals took an average of 49 weeks, almost a year. My office contacted the Department the week before last and was told that appeals submitted 17 months ago are now being assessed. A period of 17 months is unacceptable. Domiciliary care allowance is a small payment but for many people, especially when a child’s disability has come to light, it can be quite overbearing. Waiting for a refusal of such payment is ridiculous. Should a review of the scheme be conducted? Is the Minister aware of the success rates of appeals? An increasing rate of successful appeals indicates a problem earlier in the system that should be addressed. The deciding officers at the initial phase need to spend more time examining the case files so they do not clog up the system later. In this case it is a small payment but in other social welfare cases people’s lives depend on the payment so they can pay bills, maintain a roof over their heads and ensure their children can go to school. I acknowledge the changes that have been brought about. Hopefully the temporary and permanent staff will have a substantial impact. An appeals process of three or four months, rather than nearly a year, is acceptable

Deputy Joan Burton: The current information on appeals is 29.7 weeks, a lengthy period of time in respect of domiciliary care allowance. Parents applying for this allowance for the first time can encounter significant difficulties. I told Deputy Kelleher earlier that, on taking up office, one of the first things I arranged to do was to meet the people in the management of the Social Welfare Appeals Office, with a view to seeing how we could deal with the appeals in a much speedier fashion. One part of that is the appointment of additional staff and I am confident that it will result in a significant improvement in the situation. The second issue, being examined by the chief appeals officer, is to speed up the process by having more summary decision making. The required information must be in order so the appeals officer is in a position to make a decision because 42% of appeals are ultimately granted, which is a very high rate of successful appeal. If we could get more of the appeals dealt with by summary examination of the files and decision by the appeals officer that would significantly reduce the time, particularly when those people will go on to have an oral hearing and will have the appeal granted in any event. I will return to the Deputy on the matter. I am sure we will talk on the matter again. I am aware of the difficulties experienced by people in the appeals process, in particular with important assistance such as the domiciliary care allowance. Today I was involved in the launch of the national advocacy scheme which is under the auspices of the Citizens Information Board. There is a very enthusiastic team of people in five regions in the country who will assist in advocacy. That will be a valuable additional source of information and advice for people involved in domiciliary care allowance appeals and requests.

Employment Rights 29. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has explored the possibility of recouping the cost from guilty employers of social welfare payments made to persons during the period extending from their unfair dismissal and a determination by the Employment Appeals Tribunals that they had been wrongfully dismissed and were then reinstated or compensated by order of the Tribunal [6015/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The Employment Appeals Tribunal is an independent body bound to act judicially and was set up to provide a speedy, fair, inexpensive and informal means for individuals to seek remedies for alleged infringements of their statutory rights. Where compensation is awarded by an Employment Appeals Tribunal, the award is subject to a maximum of

848 Adjournment 30 March 2011. Debate Matters

104 weeks remuneration. Remuneration includes basic pay, allowances, bonuses, benefit-in- kind and employers’ contribution to pension and health insurance schemes where applicable. The tribunal, in setting the award, must consider actual and prospective loss. The tribunal can reduce the level of an award due to the employees’ contribution to the dismissal, the employees’ failure to mitigate the loss or the employees’ ability to mitigate the loss by securing alternative employment. The calculation of awards is usually based on net remuneration. Between 1977 and 1993, if an employee received an award as a result of an Employment Appeals Tribunal process, the amount of any social welfare payments received were deducted from this award. The Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 changed this provision to permit the tribunal to disregard social welfare benefits and tax rebates received by the claimant in assessing compensation levels. With regard to the possibility of recouping costs from employers where they have been found to have breached the statutory rights of their employees, any change in current provision would be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, to consider in the first instance.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I hope the Minister will be in contact with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation because there is potential, based on the figures, to recoup up to €2 billion in payments. That is a quick estimate based on the amount of claims disposed of. There were 200 claims in the past year for which figures are available. In the period between the claim being registered and the outcome I presume most of those people depended in some way on a social welfare payment. It is a loss to the State. Employees benefit from the protection of the State but employers benefit from it also and in some cases when awards are made they have to pay back wages. I hope the Minister will pursue this matter.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Could I ask a supplementary question?

An Ceann Comhairle: No. It is 3.45 p.m. so I am obliged to bring Question Time to a close. I am sorry.

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 Tom Fleming — the need to bring forward a date for the public service obligation on the Kerry-Dublin route; (2) Deputy Paschal Donohoe — to ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation to outline the necessary steps required to remove the market rights to hold a horse fair or market at Smithfield, Dublin 7 and whether his Department has any plans to bring forward such proposals; (3) Deputy Catherine Murphy — the need to defer the decision to make SNAs redundant at a school in County Kildare; (4) Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív — an gá atá ann go gcuirfear dóthain airgid caipitil ar fáil d’Údarás na Gaeltachta don trí bliain atá romhainn le gur féidir leis an Údarás a chuid feidhmeanna forbartha agus fiontraíochta a chomhlíonadh; (5) Deputy Joe Costello — the need for the Minister for Finance to outline NAMA’s policy for dealing with its property portfolio in the docklands and in Smithfield, Dublin 7; (6) Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh — the need for the Minister for Education and Skills to reverse the decision on pupil-teacher ratios in gaelscoileanna which will result in Gaelscoil Inse Chóir losing its ninth teacher from September this year; (7) Deputy David Stanton — the need for additional second level school places in Midleton and East Cork; (8) Deputy Brendan Griffin — issues affecting west Kerry fishermen including harbour charges and the seal popu-

849 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[An Ceann Comhairle.] lation; and (9) Deputy Joe McHugh — the implications for enterprise, trade and employment in this country of the document, Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy. The matters raised by Deputies Catherine Murphy, David Stanton, Joe McHugh and Tom Fleming have been selected for discussion.

Moriarty Tribunal Report: Statements (Resumed) An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin who I understand is sharing time with Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Peadar Tóibín.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Tá sé sin ceart. The findings of the Moriarty tribunal form another chapter in the sordid history of the golden circle of the powerful and the wealthy in this State. It is without question an indictment of Deputy Michael Lowry. It is an indictment also of the Fine Gael-Labour-Democratic Left Government in which he sat at the Cabinet table as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Above all, it is an indictment of the political culture that has dominated this State for decades. While the tribunal does not use the word “corrupt”, its findings amount to the same thing — the awarding of the State’s hugely lucrative second mobile telephone licence was corrupt. The Minister responsible, Deputy Lowry, received substantial sums of money from the winning bidder, Denis O’Brien, before and after the awarding of the licence. Fine Gael also received substantial sums of money from the same source. The spotlight has quite rightly fallen on Deputy Lowry. Sinn Féin has tabled a motion of censure. That motion should be taken today, voted on and supported by all Deputies in this House. I would ask that the Government’s intent on the motion of censure would be clarified before the conclusion of the statements. It would send a very clear signal that the political culture of corruption and cronyism is ending for good. The spotlight must also fall on the former Minister, Deputy Lowry’s Cabinet colleagues, especially the former Taoiseach, John Bruton. Mr. Bruton, now president of the Irish Financial Services Centre, said recently that the Irish people need to regain seriousness and self-respect. In his role as Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton did little to enhance national self-respect. His close ministerial colleague and chief Fine Gael party fund-raiser was none other than Deputy Lowry. The scandal exposed by the Moriarty tribunal happened on the watch of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, but he has escaped with relatively little censure for his role in it. He was at the very least, negligent in allowing Government business to be done the way it was by the then Mini- ster, Deputy Lowry. He was aware at the time that the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, was a tax evader and had availed of the 1993 tax amnesty. It says a great deal about politics in this State just before the start of the Celtic tiger that such a figure could be appointed to Cabinet. One of the less publicised findings of the tribunal is the pocketing by the then soon-to-be- Minister, Deputy Lowry, of €34,500 between 1989 and 1992. That was money from Dunnes Stores that was supposed to be given in Christmas bonuses to the workforce of Mr. Lowry’s refrigeration company. Such a culture could flourish because Mr. Bruton kowtowed to corporate interests. That was hardly surprising since they were, after all, funding Fine Gael to the hilt. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has said the Government will move to ban corporate donations. Fine Gael has a great deal of ground to make up in this regard. It clearly spent millions of euro in the recent general election yet it does not publish its party accounts, something we in Sinn Féin have been doing for years. The tribunal has described the $50,000 payment to Fine Gael from Telenor-Esat as “secretive, utterly lacking in transparency and designed to conceal the fact of such a payment”. Mr. Bruton did return this money, but the truth of

850 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) what had happened was only revealed after probing by the media. It was carefully concealed and begs the question as to what other significant corporate donations to Fine Gael were or are being concealed. The question has been put by my party colleague and leader in the House on a number occasions this week and last. Were there other donations to Fine Gael either directly from Mr. Denis O’Brien or any of the companies in which he has an interest? In 1997 we got a snapshot of the range and level of corporate donations to Establishment political parties when a box of files on donors was, apparently inadvertently, thrown into a skip outside the head office of the Progressive Democrats during a clear-out. It was removed from the skip and sent anonymously to a Sunday newspaper. The donors included Tony Ryan of GPA, De Beers diamonds, Tara Mines, Waterford Glass and Larry Goodman and there were donations from executives in firms such as Stokes Kennedy Crowley and Arthur Cox & Co. There was £12,000 from Smurfit’s in 1987 and again in 1989, and £30,000 in 1992. If there had been a similar skip mishap outside Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil head offices, perhaps more information would be to hand today. Fine Gael should publish its accounts, including corporate donations. We have repeatedly pointed out that in key policy areas, including economic strategy, there is little difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. While Fine Gael always attempts to refute this, it is much more vehement in its denial that it is the same as the other party in terms of political culture, cronyism and corruption. This may be true, but only to a certain extent, which is no comfort to the Deputies opposite. The difference is that Fianna Fáil has been in government far more often and for longer in the history of the State than Fine Gael and the opportunities for those of its members who have been corrupt have, therefore, been far greater. Boy, have they availed of these opportunities. The media and political debate is focused predominantly on individuals because the tribunal’s inquiries and findings were based on the conduct of individuals. However, there are wider implications for the conduct of politics and Government policy. There was, apparently, nothing illegal or, on the face of it, corrupt about the privatisation of Eircom, but in its results it was far more disastrous than the awarding of the second mobile phone licence. Strategic infrastructure was sold off and the Government threw away its responsibility to develop the telecommunications infrastructure of the country in a properly planned and equitable manner, with the profits being ploughed back to maintain and upgrade that resource. Instead, the general public was invited to be a shareholder and when that venture collapsed, leaving many thousands of small investors out of pocket, the company was sold off. Among the principal beneficiaries was none other than Tony O’Reilly who profited to the tune of many millions. This may not be termed corrupt in the legal sense, but I believe it was a corruption of the role of the Government and a betrayal of the public interest. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are at one on the policy of privatisation. In the last Dáil they both supported the privatisation of Aer Lingus. We learned yesterday that the chief executive of the privatised Aer Lingus received €1.32 million in salary and bonus payments in 2010. The golden circle has changed but, very sadly, only in form and personnel. I will conclude with some questions which I hope the Taoiseach and the Minister will answer. They will have an opportunity to respond later in the debate. Will the Taoiseach state whether Fine Gael will publish its accounts? Will it publish its list of corporate donors, especially in the recent general election? The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Cabinet had directed the relevant Departments to provide a comprehensive report for the Government within four weeks on the report’s recommendations in order that appropriate action could be taken. Will that comprehensive report be published and brought before the Dáil for our consideration? The

851 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] Taoiseach promised to bring forward legal and constitutional provisions to ban corporate donations. When will these provisions be brought forward? Before making what I hope will be the unanimous decision to pass the motion of censure, in respect of which we take some encouragement from the Taoiseach’s remarks earlier, I hope all of these questions will be fully responded to before this business is concluded today.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: The Moriarty tribunal report, the travails of the tribunal, the various legal challenges and some of the really acidic invective, particularly that directed towards Mr. Justice Moriarty, confirm once again for the public, in a very depressing way, the unhealthy and corrupting relationship between politics and at least some big businesses. People’s worst suspicion that there is an unhealthy insiders’ boys’ club version of politics running its writ in the State has been reconfirmed. Deputy Michael Lowry says he is innocent of any wrongdoing and is entitled to defend his good name and reputation. He is equally entitled to challenge the findings of the tribunal. However, he was allowed yesterday, with the indulgence of the House, a full hour to launch invective and abuse not only against the tribunal and its process but also against Mr. Justice Moriarty in a very personal way. Rather than coming to the House as a Member to give an account of himself, challenge any factual errors and present an alternative case, he chose to heap abuse and invective in the course of one hour period. The tribunal was established by the Oireachtas under terms agreed in this House. It has done its work and returned with his findings. It is incumbent on the House not only to accept those findings but also to follow the logic of that acceptance. It is for that reason Sinn Féin has tabled a motion of censure against Deputy Michael Lowry. We believe it should be a cross-party motion and that the Government should make time available to debate it. It is essential outside this rarefied environment that the electorate, the people, see very clearly that when findings of such a serious nature are laid before the House in respect of a Member thereof, the Dáil will act, even if the actions available to it are woefully inadequate. It is a matter of absolute urgency that the Taoiseach make good his commitment of this morning and allow for the motion to be taken. Ideally, it should be a cross-party motion. Understandably, the vast bulk of media and political attention generated by the publication of the Moriarty tribunal report has focused on Deputy Michael Lowry, but there are wider considerations. The Deputy was the key Minister of the rainbow Government. The Taoiseach was a member of that Government, as were Deputies Richard Bruton, Brendan 4o’clock Howlin, Ruairí Quinn and Michael Noonan, all of whom are back in the Cabinet. The decision to award the licence was a major one and proved extremely lucrative. To that extent, those who were members of the Cabinet at the time in question need to examine their own role and answer therefor in accepting Deputy Michael Lowry’s recommendations. The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, who was Minister for Finance at the time in question, was a member of the Cabinet sub-committee on communications which had prime responsibility for the licence approval. According to the tribunal’s report, Deputy Michael Lowry, as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, sought a meeting with the members of the sub-committee in October 1995. The object of that meeting, on Deputy Lowry’s part, was to seek the support of the Taoiseach, John Bruton, the Labour Party leader and Tánaiste, Dick Spring, and the subcom- mittee members for his proposal to begin exclusive negotiations with Esat Digifone on the GSM licences.

852 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

The Moriarty tribunal report states, “the party leaders and Mr. Quinn collectively approved the recommendation made by Mr. Lowry that exclusive negotiations should be opened with Esat Digifone”. All of those there at the time later claimed that Deputy Lowry had told them that Esat Digifone had proven to be the only plausible applicant. In light of what we now know, that was, to say the least, a very contentious verdict at which to arrive. In fairness to those other Ministers who gave their assent in 1995, they were clearly led to believe that there were no outstanding issues to be examined or resolved. The Moriarty tribunal report suggests that the documentation which Deputy Lowry used to persuade his then colleagues of the virtues of Esat Digifone’s case were not perhaps what they seemed at the time. Nobody is suggesting, and I am certainly not suggesting, that there was any hint of impropriety on the part of any other Minister in that Government. However, they ought to hold up their hands and accept they were perhaps at least somewhat negligent in giving their approval, particularly given the huge value of the licence to the winner. Another issue that touches upon the Government is the role of the Minister for the Envir- onment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. He was a key member of the group responsible for organising fundraising on behalf of Fine Gael. In that capacity, he was the conduit for several substantial donations from Denis O’Brien. Mark FitzGerald was also involved in party fundraising and he recalls that shortly after one fundraising event in October 1995 he met the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and Denis O’Brien, at a meeting initiated by Denis O’Brien. The transcript of the tribunal hearing of 6 December 2002 contains the following report of Mr. FitzGerald’s evidence:

Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that Mr. O’Brien asked to meet with him for coffee at a restaurant close to Mr. FitzGerald’s office. Mr FitzGerald assumed that this might relate to a business matter about which he had shortly before spoken to Mr. O’Brien. Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that he was surprised when he arrived to find Mr. O’Brien sitting at a table with Mr. Phil Hogan and the late Mr. Jim Mitchell. As he sat down, Mr. FitzGerald has informed the Tribunal that Mr. O’Brien asked him if he had heard any news on the licence.

If that meeting did take place, there are serious questions to be asked and responded to by all of those who were present, including the Minister, Deputy Hogan. Here, according to Mr. FitzGerald and Mr. Justice Moriarty, a person who had donated significant sums of money to one of the Government parties was meeting a Government Deputy and seeking to find out about a licence application that was potentially, and indeed proved to be, of immense value to Mr. O’Brien. This is something that surely warrants further attention and clarification from the Minister, Deputy Hogan, given that I understand he claims to have no recollection of that meeting ever having taken place. Fine Gael is now committed to ending corporate donations and we very much hope this proves to be the case, but just as it demanded full explanations from Fianna Fáil regarding that party’s relationship with corporate donors and favours that may or may not have been asked or performed, Fine Gael also needs to come clean on this aspect of its past. Indeed, it would appear from reports of large sums collected by Fine Gael for its most recent election campaign that we are not talking simply about the past. We are talking about close links between Fine Gael and big business that reach right up and into the present. We know that some of those who contributed recently to the Fine Gael coffers have included property developers who are now under the auspices of NAMA and the EBS, which had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

853 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.]

Given what we now know about favours sought and granted on the basis of similar donations from similar sources in the past, Fine Gael needs to show it has decisively turned its back on the seedy culture of financial ties between big business and politics. It needs to move rapidly to end corporate donations and ensure that any legislation provides for the full disclosure of all donations. As part of being clear about its past, Fine Gael should publish a full list of all corporate and business donations which it received as part of its fundraising for the recent general election campaign. This in itself would go a long way to restoring the trust of the people and of the House in its elected representatives following the revelations in the report.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín: The Moriarty affair highlights a number of major problems that demand immediate resolution. Why did the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government of the day not prevent this from happening? How, as a State, can we create a fair system in which bids such as these can be evaluated? Another major question is on how Government parties have been funded in recent years. How can we investigate wrongdoings such as this without placing a disgusting cost on the shoulders of the Irish citizens? What level of real censure can we bring to bear on people guilty of such wrongs? With regard to the first question on how Fine Gael and the Labour Party allowed this to happen, yesterday in his speech Deputy Lowry asked, “Does any politician here believe that John Bruton, Dick Spring and Proinsias De Rossa would be so stupid as to allow the likes of John Loughrey and me to pull the wool over their eyes in some way or other?” The answer to this question is in the 14 years and 2,438 pages of the report. Implicitly, it states that at the very least the wool was pulled over the eyes of the Fine Gael and Labour Party Government. However, the report goes further than this. Not even a month into the Government’s tenure, it is already entangled in allegations by an eminent tribunal judge. In addition to suggestions of unprecedented and inappropriate ministerial interference, serious questions have been asked about the flow of large funds through Fine Gael headquarters at the time when John Bruton was in charge. With regard to the $50,000 donation from Esat Digifone and Telenor to Fine Gael, the report states it is regrettable that Fine Gael and other parties to the transaction made no disclosure to the tribunal, even though they had a substantial degree of knowledge about the clandestine circumstances involved. Why, if this money was handed back, could Fine Gael not answer the tribunal? Is this the transparency and openness in public office that we can look forward to in the next term? Given the enormous sums of taxpayers’ money that went into these tribunals, it is deeply unsettling that the Government cannot make these disclosures. The statements and the actions of Fine Gael are striking. In 2001, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan stated:

All over the world, it is recognised that financial support from business to politicians is perceived by the public to have one purpose [namely] the securing of commercial advantage. Claims that such donations are made from disinterested motives are simply not believed. As the lurid tribunal scandals play out before our eyes, one thing is clear. We cannot restore politics until the perceived link between political contributions and public policy is broken.

While we can discuss Mr. Lowry, we must also have recourse to the other members of the Government who find themselves in Cabinet again. In the national interest, is it possible to have published the Cabinet papers of the then coalition Government which relate to the awarding of the mobile phone contract to Esat Digifone? The Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, has said that the report has exonerated Fine Gael Ministers, but have the events that occurred exonerated Ministers? One leads by example and the

854 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) example that has been set by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael has been appalling. Political reform was one of the buzz words of the recent election. If the new Government is serious about political reform, if it is serious about openness, transparency, disclosure and bringing the political system closer to the people, now is the time to make a goodwill gesture to the people and publish all papers relating to this matter. The tribunal findings are not just an indictment of an individual or maybe even a number of political parties but rather they are a shocking indictment of our whole political and justice system. That the rich and powerful can buy favour with the establishment political parties is shocking and deeply unfair. That there is no efficient system to bring wrong-doers to justice is also shocking. The tribunals have no teeth. The parties embroiled are still able to remain as Members of the Dáil or even compose the Government, yet, millions of euros of taxpayers’ money has been used to produce a substantive document on foot of which there is no power to impose a serious sentence. The Moriarty tribunal report just lends more credence to the fact that our political and justice systems are in dire need of reform and that we need to design, implement and use a series of checks and balances to limit the scope for excess by the powerful. We need to ensure that our Constitution is a framework for government that allows for the exercise of political power which is in the ownership of its citizens. We need to ensure that our way of governing ourselves has the means to be successful for the common good with increased democratic accountability and the capacity to adapt to the changes that constantly descend upon it. Our citizens need to ensure that the State’s decision-making processes are transparent, structured and disciplined. These structures need to inspire confidence. The Oireachtas has consistently failed to exert sufficient scrutiny over the Government and public bodies. This is largely because it has not had the powers to perform these functions and many Members are distracted by clientelism. We need to copper-fasten new ways of governing ourselves to avoid the kind of muddling through, lethargy, lack of foresight and setbacks that blight previous efforts at reform. To ensure this, we need to crack down on white collar crime, strengthen laws and give the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation additional resources. There should be annual publication of independently-audited accounts by political parties, including income and expenditure accounts and a party balance sheet. I repeat the call made by my colleagues to the Government parties to publish a full list of donations to their parties. We need to reverse the dilution of the Freedom of Information Act and introduce legislation to protect whistleblowers. While I accept that these initiatives may take time to research consider and implement, there is nothing to stop political parties taking the last three steps themselves. During the election, Sinn Féin said there was a pressing need to change the law to allow for the impeachment or removal of any Deputy from the Dáil involved in corruption, deliberate misuse of public money or fraud. With a total of €42 million, 14 years and more than 2,000 pages later, it is very clear that this needs to happen as a matter of priority. This is the reason Sinn Féin has tabled the motion before the House that Deputy Michael Lowry should be censured. At a time when Irish people desperately need transparency in public life, when major political donations have been shown to adversely influence public affairs and when the nation’s reputation has once again been sullied by how the issuing of a lucrative mobile phone licence was dealt with, the Government must now play a leading role in the political clean-up that needs to be undertaken. If the Government is serious about reform, it should provide us now with a timetable for the implementation of that reform. The reaction by the Government will be the litmus test of the capacity and will of the new Government to address corruption and to instigate genuine reform. Never again can we have a situation whereby corrupt or questionable dealings are referred to toothless tribunals.

855 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Peadar Tóibín.]

The golden circle became the golden circus. We must not lose sight of the cost of this golden circus, as the tribunal has been called. The tribunal has cost €41 million. What can one get for €41 million? The previous Government’s national recovery plan proposed to cut spending in a whole host of important areas. A total of €22 million was cut in schools capitation grants. There has been a significant reduction in funding throughout the State. We should bear in mind that this money means opportunity lost for the people of Ireland and that it is being taken out of their pockets.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter): I wish to share time with fellow Ministers, Deputies Quinn and Hogan and with Deputies Jed Nash and Michael McCarthy. Within 24 hours of its publication the Moriarty report was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána, who are the bodies responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. The report is being studied by the Garda Síochána at present. It has also been referred to the Revenue Commissioners. This clearly illustrates that the Government regards the contents of the report as extremely serious. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, I am particularly conscious of the responsibility that rests on all of us not to do or say anything that might undermine or interfere with the role of the Garda or the DPP and so prejudice possible future criminal proceedings. I remind the House that in the past a statement made by a Minister had such an effect. My priority as Minister is to ensure that the criminal law is such that successful prosecutions are possible when criminal offences have been committed. It is not appropriate that the Mini- ster for Justice, Equality and Defence should prejudge such matters. Therefore, in the circumstances, I do not intend to make any comment on the findings in the Moriarty report with regard to the conduct of Deputy Lowry or any other person connected with the licence granted to Esat Digifone or with regard to the dealings detailed in the report in which it is stated individuals were engaged. These matters are under consideration by the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions will decide independently whether any criminal charges should be brought. The Taoiseach in his contribution has already referred to the recommendations for substantial reform contained in the Moriarty report, as also has the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Many of the reforms recommended already form part of the programme for Government and a commitment has been given to implement badly needed reforms in respect of areas addressed by the Moriarty report. The recommendations of the tribunal did not specifically address broader issues concerning the investigation and prosecution of white collar crime. This is a subject firmly in the programme for Government. The programme contains a commitment that rogue bankers and all those who misappropriate or embezzle funds or who are engaged in any form of white collar crime, will be properly pursued for their crimes and that the full rigours of the law will apply to them. In his report, Mr. Justice Moriarty made a number of recommendations concerning the future operation of tribunals of inquiry. These recommendations broadly refer to matters concerning the duties and responsibilities of persons appearing before the tribunal as witnesses or requested by it to provide certain documentation. The programme for Government contains a commitment to reform and update legislation with regard to tribunals of inquiry. In this context, it is noteworthy that a previous Fianna Fáil-led Government published the Tribunals of Inquiry Bill 2005 but this was left languishing on the Dáil Order Paper for more than six years and

856 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) never completed its passage through the House. I have arranged for its restoration to the Dáil Order Paper and the Bill will be dealt with as a Report Stage measure. I am pleased that many of the provisions in the Bill as it stands would appear to address concerns expressed by Mr. Justice Moriarty and the recommendations suggested by him. Deputy Micheál Martin is the Leader of Fianna Fáil in this House and he pirouetted on the morality soapbox in response to the report. He failed to explain to the House why the Govern- ment of which he was a senior member failed to enact this important legislation over an extended period of time. In so far as any additional legislative changes are necessary to address the Moriarty recommendations, my Department will examine the recommendations in consultation with relevant Departments and the Attorney General, with a view to their implementation, as appropriate, within the context of the Bill now restored to the Order Paper. In the brief time available to me, I wish to address two matters of importance connected with the Moriarty report, the response to it given by some of those involved in the tribunal hearings and also the response of Fianna Fáil. Members of the Judiciary are precluded by their independence and constitutional status from entering into controversy or responding to attacks made on them. However, such was the unprecedented and virulent nature of the attacks made last week on the tribunal chairman, who is a respected senior member of the Judiciary, and on the Judiciary as a whole, that I felt it was necessary for me, as Minister for Justice and Law Reform, to condemn the entirely unacceptable statements made. In the normal course of the administration of justice, an unsuccessful party may often express disagreement with the decisions of a court. Individuals may also disagree with the conclusions of a tribunal whether a party to a matter under inquiry by a tribunal or simply someone commenting on its conclusions. In expressing views individuals are entitled to be critical and complain about the outcome. This is human nature, and is perfectly reasonable and proper in a democracy. What occurred last week went substantially beyond any critique that is acceptable and was intended to bring the Judiciary into disrepute and to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The personalised nature of the assault on the integrity of Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty by Deputy Lowry in this House last night is also entirely unacceptable. In so far as the Deputy or any other person alleges that the tribunal expressed opinions or reached conclusions for which there was no basis in evidence, a mechanism is available by way of judicial review to the High Court to have such matters addressed. That mechanism was previously utilised in the case of Kirrane v. Finlay. I am sure those who have made intemperate comment on the tribunal’s report are fully aware of this possibility and it is for them to decide whether they wish to take any such action. An independent Judiciary is something we have taken for granted since the earliest days of this State. I think it appropriate, given recent events, to remind Deputies just what that stock phrase means. An independent Judiciary ensures that judges’ decisions are taken solely on the basis of law, independent of any fear, favour or influence, whether personal, political or media driven. The power of judges to uphold the Constitution and strike down aspects of our law is a fundamental bulwark against the risk of tyranny and oppression. Guaranteed this independence, the judicial system in a democracy serves as a safeguard of the rights and freedoms of all the people. We have been well served by our independent Judiciary and to imply otherwise — indeed to accuse judges of conspiracy and bias — is entirely unacceptable and wrong. To make reference to the availability of appeal system within our courts to suggest the judges are incapable of reaching proper decisions is also incorrect, as Deputy Lowry suggested last night. The appeals system is an inherent part of our judicial system, just as the possibility of judicial review is available to those who believe they have been wronged by a tribunal. I will not be found wanting in protecting and ensuring their independence is strengthened and secured.

857 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

I now turn to the responses, in particular that of the new leader of Fianna Fáil. On 9 March on the nomination of Deputy Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, Deputy Martin, reflecting on the outcome of the general election stated:

One of the clearest messages from the people is that they want us to reform the way we do our business in this House. Far too often, contributions here are about seeking attention rather than dealing with the serious issues at hand. The difference between permanent campaigning and daily business is sometimes difficult to discern.

He promised that Fianna Fáil’s approach in the Dáil “will be to provide constructive opposition”. His initial contribution in the Dáil last week on the Moriarty report, and as repeated both in his speech yesterday and on the Leaders’ Questions this morning, starkly illustrate his incapacity to keep such promises or to change the traditional dishonest obfuscation beloved by Fianna Fáil Party members. On the one hand, Deputy Martin says that he accepts in full the Moriarty report and the recommendations contained in it and, on the other, he has consistently and persistently deliberately misrepresented and selectively quoted from the report. He has engaged in what can at best be charitably described as nauseating hypocrisy, selective recall and moral ambivalence. He seems oblivious to the political credibility gap of enormous dimen- sion which contaminates much of what he has so far said. He is presenting as someone who has emerged after 20 years lost in a political twilight zone suffering from amnesia and oblivious to events in which he has personally participated. He seems even incapable of remembering the recent secret deal concluded by Fianna Fáil with Deputy Lowry subsequent to publication of both the McCracken report and part 1 of the Moriarty report designed to preserve and maintain Deputy Martin’s ministerial status in Government until February of this year. In his obsessive wish to inflict political damage on the Government and in particular the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Martin has predictably made heavy weather of the unwanted $50,000 donation by Esat via Telenor to Fine Gael in late December 1995. He has chosen to ignore that in February 1996 when the then leader of Fine Gael and Taoiseach, John Bruton, learned of the donation, as Mr. Justice Moriarty records at paragraph 62.04: “That donation was unwelcome to the party, and was rejected by the party leader.” He also chooses to ignore that unknown to John Bruton instead of these moneys being returned they were retained in an offshore account by the late Mr. David Austin and, as the report records in the same paragraph, “subsequently introduced to party funds, disguised as a personal contribution by Mr. Austin”. It is clear from the report that Mr. Jim Miley, based in Fine Gael headquarters, who received this sum on behalf of Fine Gael, believed the moneys received to be a personal donation by Mr. Austin and when in receipt of them had no knowledge of what had occurred in February 1996.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): I ask the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I believe, Sir, I started late and have at least another minute from my recollection.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): The clock started——

Deputy Alan Shatter: When subsequently learning of the origins of these moneys, Mr. Bruton for a second time rejected them. Only the late David Austin could have known why he conducted matters in this way and sought to furnish funds to the Fine Gael Party a second time that had already been rejected by the then leader of my party. It is grossly dishonest of Deputy Martin to turn the probity of John Bruton and the Fine Gael Party on its head and to engage in old style Fianna Fáil smear politics.

858 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): The Minister will need to conclude.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I will conclude in a moment. His conduct on this issue is proof that despite his promise of new politics from Fianna Fáil nothing has really changed. This is starkly further illustrated by his choosing to besmirch the good conduct of the Fine Gael Party and to ignore the morally reprehensible conduct of his own party yet again referred to in the Moriarty report on which he has remained silent. In this context the report referred to £160,000 raised by Fianna Fáil, of which £75,000 ultimately found its way to that party and the remainder was retained by Mr. Charles Haughey for his own personal expenditure. I expected a more honest and straightforward response by Deputy Martin to the publication of the Moriarty report. It is disappointing that the new approach to politics promised by him on 9 March last has been so rapidly abandoned.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): I ask the Minister to conclude.

Deputy Alan Shatter: What Deputy Martin has attempted falsely and wrongfully to accuse Fine Gael of doing, one of his own former party leaders barefacedly did with impunity.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): I call the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, who has eight minutes. Does he want to take the eight minutes?

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I will be as fast as I can. I wish to put on record of the House the extent of my involvement in dealing with the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters carried out by Mr. Justice Moriarty. Chapter 48 of the report is the section which is of most personal interest to me. It retraces, in an exact and comprehensive manner, the events leading up and including Wednesday, 25 October 1995. I wish to say in the first instance that I am completely satisfied that the events, as recounted in the tribunal report, are entirely consistent with my own recollection and with my evidence to the tribunal of inquiry. The practice of the then rainbow Government was that all Cabinet meetings would be executive decision-making meetings. My diary from the time accurately records that on Wednesday, 25 October 1995, the meeting of party leaders, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was due to take place at 4 p.m. that afternoon. This was known as the Aer Lingus committee or otherwise, as noted in my diary, party leaders re budget finance matters. The tribunal report states that in advance of this Aer Lingus meeting, the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, had met the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, to discuss what would turn out to be the recommendation made by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on the mobile telephone licence. Deputy Lowry has also stated in evidence to the tribunal that I had spoken to him, in advance of the meeting with the party leaders, about the recommendation he would be making to Cabinet. Deputy Lowry has also suggested in his evidence that I had intimated to him my satisfaction with how the mobile telephone competition had been carried out and with the final result. It has been claimed that my satisfaction with the process was based on a briefing I had received from my officials earlier on Wednesday, 25 October. I do not agree at all with this evidence by Deputy Lowry and I stated as much when giving evidence before the tribunal. My diary of Wednesday, 25 October 1995 involved a series of meetings ahead of the party leaders’ meeting, all of which took place outside my Department. I simply did not have the time to read and review the memorandum prepared by an official in my Department regarding the mobile phone licence competition. I had no knowledge of the outcome of the competition before attending the party leaders’ Aer Lingus meeting at 4 p.m.

859 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] The meeting of Wednesday, 25 October took place at 4 p.m as scheduled. At that meeting after we had concluded the scheduled business of the meeting, which concerned the Cahill report and restructuring Aer Lingus, Deputy Lowry informed John Bruton, Dick Spring, Proinsias de Rossa and myself that the mobile phone licence competition had been completed, that Esat Digifone was the clear winner of the competition and that it had won by a clear margin over the other consortia. It is my recollection, as noted in chapter 48, paragraph 60 of the tribunal report that Deputy Lowry presented a league table score which covered each of the applicants in the competition. Given the scale of difference between the numerical scores provided, I was satisfied that the outcome of the process had selected a clear winner. It is worth quoting the following section of chapter 48, paragraph 60, for the benefit of the House. It states:

What those present did not know, and were not told, was that those numerical scores represented the outcome of a subjective judgemental exercise; that, in arriving at those scores, weightings other than those agreed in advance of the process had been applied; and that the representation of the results in that manner was one which the independent consultants had not recommended, and had regarded as a presentation which could distort the concept of a qualitative evaluation.

I had no prior knowledge or reason to suspect the competition may have been conducted in any fashion other than the correct one. I also wish to read into the record of the House two separate remarks made by Mr. Justice Moriarty when evaluating the evidence made by all who attended this meeting. Again, I wish to quote from chapter 48, paragraph 64, which refers to the briefing document provided by Deputy Lowry to the party leaders and me:

Having regard to the manner in which the result was portrayed in that document, it is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Bruton, Mr. Spring, Mr. De Rossa and Mr. Quinn were left with the impression that there was a clear, unconditional and unequivocal outcome.

I also want to quote directly from chapter 48, paragraph 59. It states:

None of the party leaders nor Mr. Quinn knew anything of the events which had occurred over the previous days and weeks within the Project Group and the Department. Nor were they aware of the views of certain members of the Project Group, nor of the concerns surrounding the finances of Esat Digifone, nor of the significant departures which had been made from the evaluation methodology adopted prior to the closing date of the competitive process, and the possible consequences of those departures, nor it seems were they aware of how close the result had been. Had they been so aware, it seems from their evidence that they would have wished to explore matters beyond the level of consideration given by them on the afternoon of Wednesday 25th October 1995. Had the result been presented as a close one, Mr. De Rossa testified that he would certainly have sought more information, and Mr. Spring thought that had there been a ambiguity or draw in the outcome, the matter would probably have been referred back to the full Cabinet. In the event, none of that information was provided by Mr. Lowry. Instead it was the impression of the party leaders and Mr. Quinn, from what was conveyed to them by Mr. Lowry, that the result had been clear, unequivocal, and unqualified, and they had been led to believe, as Mr. De Rossa put it, that Esat Digifone was so far ahead that they could not give the outcome to any other consortium.

860 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

It was on the basis of this information, which can only be described as misleading and factually inaccurate, although it did not appear so at the time, that the three party leaders of the rainbow Government and myself, as Minister for Finance, were misled by Deputy Lowry into giving what amounted to a de factoGovernment approval. We were told there was pressure for the information to be released because it would leak to the wider public and since there was a clear-cut conclusion which would be ratified by the Government at its next full meeting we might as well make the knowledge public. We collectively decided to so do. I will conclude my remarks with one final quote from the report of Mr. Justice Moriarty from chapter 48, paragraph 66: “in consequence of the approach taken by Mr. Lowry, the opportunity for scrutiny or consideration by his Cabinet colleagues, or their advisors, was significantly curtailed”.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): There are 11 minutes left and three speakers remain. How does Deputy Hogan wish to share time?

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I will take eight minutes. I ask the Acting Chairman to tell me when there are four minutes remaining.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): There are two other speakers in the Government slot. We are running over time.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I know that, but I need eight minutes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): That will reduce the time remaining for the other speakers.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I will look for the indulgence of the Chair.

Deputy Seán Kenny: I have to be fair to everybody. I will have to allow some time for the other two speakers. I ask the Minister to be as brief as possible.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I welcome the publication of the report of the Moriarty tribunal and commend Mr. Justice Moriarty on the detailed and considered work that he and his team have done in producing a report of such depth and scope. This is a serious report with strong recommendations which need to be assessed and implemented. I accept the findings of the report and commend the decision of the Taoiseach to refer the report to the DPP and the Garda for investigation as to any further enforcement or prosecutions that may be warranted. I have asked my officials in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment to examine the recommendations in the report and to identify what changes to policies, practices and legislation need to be implemented following the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Moriarty. Any such changes will be identified within the four week period outlined by the Taoiseach and brought to Government at the earliest opportunity. From a personal perspective, I regret the efforts of some of the Deputies opposite to try to cast a smear over my character arising from the publication of the report. In the first instance they have peddled a suggestion that Mr. Justice Moriarty was critical of evidence that I provided to the tribunal in my efforts to assist it in its important work. The judge in the report was not critical of my evidence to the tribunal. In fact, he made no adverse comment in regard to my evidence to the tribunal. For the record, I should also further state he made no adverse

861 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Phil Hogan.] finding or conclusion concerning me, which I know is a source of great disappointment to some people. Of course, there is good reason for this. Aside from the fact that I assisted the tribunal fully in its work, as every elected Member should do, I was also remote and detached from the events that led to the awarding of the licence to Esat Digifone. As Deputies may recall — Deputy Mary Lou McDonald may not be aware of this — at that time I was a backbench Deputy, having resigned a junior Ministry following the inadvertent release of budget material some weeks before. I took responsibility at that time for the indiscretion, resigned my junior Ministry and went to the backbenches. From there I dedicated myself to the organisation of Fine Gael and to serving my constituents in Carlow Kilkenny. I had no hand, act or part in the process to award the licence or in the subsequent decision to award the licence by the Government. Listening to the sanctimonious comments from Deputy Martin and his colleagues reveals the breathtaking hypocrisy and double standards that are now the common currency of the remnants of a once proud political party. Listening to Deputy Martin, one could be forgiven for forgetting that Fianna Fáil was also a significant recipient of donations from Mr. O’Brien. Indeed, while a Minister Deputy Martin was forced to admit that he personally solicited political donations from Owen O’Callaghan, the developer who has featured centrally in the Flood and Mahon tribunals. Deputy Martin criticises the evidence that I gave to the tribunal, yet he tends to forget evidence that he provided to the Mahon tribunal on 15 November 2007 when he said that he had no recollection of being at a meeting with Bertie Ahern and Owen O’Callaghan in Government buildings, despite the detail of the meeting being recorded in the former Taoiseach’s departmental diary entry at the time. Deputy Martin told the tribunal, prior to the surprise emergence of the entry in the former Taoiseach’s diary, that in regard to his part in the meeting with Mr. O’Callaghan he never brought Mr. O’Callaghan to meet other politicians. I ask Deputy Martin and Deputy Kelleher to have less of the pious preaching about credibility in evidence to tribunals and less of the Punch and Judy politics that Fianna Fáil wishes to perpetuate and sought to change in the recent general election. All this has come from a party that has had the franchise on debasing Irish politics and public life through whip-rounds, pick me ups, cronyism and post-dinner collec- tions for a party leader. Spare us the hypocrisy. There are members opposite who have tried to fix me with guilt by association because I have been an acquaintance of Deputy Lowry’s for many years. Deputy Lowry has no association with Fine Gael for the past 14 years. In fact, his association and voting record in the Dáil over the past eight years in particular would suggest that he has been a bigger supporter of Fianna Fáil than Fine Gael. Furthermore, there are many revelations about Charles Haughey in volume 1 of the report, who was a family friend of the current Fianna Fáil leader, Deputy Martin. That should not mean that the findings against Mr. Haughey in this report about funding and finances are the responsibility of Deputy Martin, but he chooses to reverse that principle in respect of others in this House. So much for his view that we must change the politics as usual that he tried to perpetuate in a political reform document dealing with issues like these during the general election. It is difficult to come to terms with the methodology of Sinn Féin fundraising. Needless to say, a ban on corporate donations will not cover Sinn Féin practices, at home or abroad. We need to examine in the context of forthcoming legislation the unaccounted for golden circle of Sinn Féin funding from the United States, some of which is channelled through Northern Ireland for elections in the State — that is true.

862 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: That is rubbish.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Nonsense.

Deputy Phil Hogan: It was Fianna Fáil, not Fine Gael, that cut secret deals with Deputy Lowry. It was Fianna Fáil, aided and abetted by the Greens, which cobbled together secret arrangements and kept that information from public view to keep a discredited Government in power beyond its expiry date. I hold no truck for those found to have behaved as described by Mr. Justice Moriarty and they should be subject, as they have been put to by the Taoiseach, of the full rigours of all of the various agencies of the State. There is another political smear being put forward, that I had access to the Moriarty report, before its publication, in its draft form. This is another false statement put forward as truth by people who do not know the difference between lies and truth, and is totally without foundation. I would challenge those Deputies who have made that assertion to state so outside this House. There are elements in the report which give cause for concern, that is, the level of legal fees that have been imposed and agreed by Fianna Fáil Ministers who sat here and agreed all of those fees for those who carried out this work.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: They are not here now.

Deputy Phil Hogan: It is interesting that none of them is here today.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: None of them is here.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The experience with the Moriarty tribunal has shown that this system of inquiry is by its nature deliberative and slow as well as being costly for the taxpayer. The scale of legal fees has been a national scandal for years and despite promises to tackle the problem that they present, legislative action on this front has been slow to take off. I have every confidence that the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Alan Shatter, will deal with those matters as they are urgent. We must also review our regime of ethics in public life to ensure that we have a robust, effective and respected ethics and standards in public office structure, and I will challenge anybody in that matter in comparing my actions in the past as a politician in this regard. The issues uncovered by the Moriarty tribunal are troubling and deserve serious consideration. I am glad to have the opportunity to refute some of the issues of misinformation that have been to me by persons who should know better. I would ask Members on all sides, and, indeed, the public, to accept my bona fides in this matter and to acknowledge it is far-fetched that an alleged meeting in a coffee shop by a backbench Deputy could result in influencing the outcome of a mobile telephone competition.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): There are two speakers remaining and there is only three minutes left. That is the dilemma. They must share three minutes.

Deputy Gerald Nash: I will edit as I go along. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this particularly important report. The report of the tribunal exposes a political culture and a modus operandi which, over a decade and a half ago, led to the awarding of what was effectively a licence to print money in circumstances that, quite frankly, were ethically and morally dubious.

863 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Gerald Nash.]

The programme for Government agreed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party makes a number of commitments to political reform that I particularly welcome in the light of the report of the Moriarty tribunal. The commitment to seek to reverse the effects of the Abbeylara judgment will be particularly welcomed by those who balked quite legitimately at the cost of that tribunal, but there were many other commitments to political reform that are of even greater value to our democracy. I particularly welcome the commitments in the programme for Government to enact whistleblowers legislation to remove the implied general delegation of ministerial statutory powers to civil servants. People are horrified by the events which led to the establishment of the tribunal. They need to know that money cannot buy political favour, that corruption can be reported without fear of retribution, that Ministers and civil servants have clear delegated responsibilities and that the Executive will be fully accountable to the Oireachtas. For us to restore Irish politics to good standing we must never again be complacent about seeking the highest possible standards in all aspects of our public life. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. This must not be the last time we have such a debate about the standards and levels of probity the people of this Republic should be entitled to expect from those they elect to represent them.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): Deputy McCarthy has one minute and 33 seconds left.

Deputy Michael McCarthy: Essentially because time does not allow me to go further, I will make one point. There has been condemnation of the work of politics and the work of this House, and, indeed, the reputation of politics in general that has been dragged through the mud because of what has gone on in this country as a result of a link between politics and business. People in this country have a right to approach their Deputies, their public representatives, about issues. There have been approximately 1,500 Members of this House since the foundation of the State and the vast majority of them were hardworking, decent and honour- able. The activities of a few have cast a dark shadow over public life. It was Tipp O’Neill who said that “All politics is local”. I make no apologies to anybody for the access that people in their communities have in terms of the political system and their Deputies. It is our role and duty. On the Fianna Fáil response to the Moriarty tribunal, three words come to mind — pot, kettle and black.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seán Kenny): I thank Deputies Nash and McCarthy for their co- operation. We are now moving into the time for the Technical Group and there are six speakers who have 30 minutes to share between them.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I wish to share time with Deputies Mattie McGrath, Thomas Pringle, Seamus Healy, Clare Daly and Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan. In my contribution, I will pose questions where I feel I need to be satisfied about conflicts. One of the roles of an Opposition Deputy is to hold the Government to account. As a consequence, I have questions for Fine Gael about those conflicts. I also have some questions for Deputy Lowry and for Deputy Martin. I read a large part of the Moriarty report. I did not know what to expect before I put the disc into the computer, but found the report was well argued and logically structured. It was clear that when a conflict arose Mr. Justice Moriarty resolved it on the balance of probabilities.

864 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

I then listened to Deputy Lowry last night, who completely rubbished the report. In the time available to me, I want to ask Deputy Lowry a few short questions. First, how does the Deputy account for the fact that, according to the tribunal findings, “in advance of the closing date of the competition, Esat Digifone had available to it confidential information regarding the weighting matrix adopted by the Project Group, that it was not entitled to have...”? Deputy Lowry exonerated all of the public servants last night and I have a particular reason for asking that. I simply cannot reconcile that, in the context of his speech last night. Deputy Lowry also spoke about Mr. Ben Dunne’s “unorthodox” payments methods. Surely Deputy Lowry should have refused to be paid in that way because it led to tax evasion. I do not understand why he would not have refused that. I suppose most of us aspire to financial independence. When we buy a house, we go to a bank to look for a mortgage, or at least people used do so. Deputy Lowry would have us believe he received £147,000 through an offshore account less than two months after the mobile telephone licence was granted in order to invest in property. Why was this money repaid on the day the McCracken tribunal was announced? I believe Deputy Lowry’s position is untenable and if politics is to again become a noble profession again, he must resign. This tribunal has cost a small fortune. What members of the public cannot understand is why, at the end of such a lengthy and expensive process, no one is seen to pay the price. When we see people going to jail for small debts such as non-payment of a television licence, the lack of sanction for such wrong doing as has been highlighted in the Moriarty report, and previously the McCracken report, is breathtaking. As I stated, one of the roles of an Opposition Deputy is to hold the Government to account, and I have questions to pose to the Taoiseach and to Fine Gael. Does the Taoiseach accept the conclusion reached by Mr. Justice Moriarty on the meeting between Mr. Mark FitzGerald, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and Mr. Denis O’Brien at Lloyd’s Brasserie in Dublin? The tribunal sided with Mr. FitzGerald’s version of events. Mr. Fitzgerald, as I understand it, was a Fine Gael trustee and son of former Taoiseach Garrett FitzGerald. Mr Justice Moriarty stated it was “difficult in the extreme to conceive” of any realistic reason or motive why Mr. FitzGerald would give false evidence. If he accepts Mr. Moriarty’s findings in this regard, has he raised the matter with the Minister, Deputy Hogan; if not, why not? If so, can he tell us the content of the conversation between them? Just before the general election, on 5 February, Deputy Hogan said the incoming Government could limit both the duration and terms of reference of a tribunal. He stated in The Sunday Business Post that the State’s two main tribunals of inquiry would be given “no more than a few months” in which to get their houses in order and finish all their work. Furthermore, he said one of his party’s first priorities in Government would be to write to the tribunals setting out a proposed timeline for their cess- ation. I understood a draft copy of the report was send to all witnesses, but I accept what has been put on the record by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, that he did not see that report. I believe it was fair to assume that he had, as a witness to the tribunal, but I will not press that issue. Has the Taoiseach — it will be he who responds on this debate — spoken to the Minister about his motivation for making his comments? The tribunal found that payments made with regard to the infamous golf classic were by way of bank drafts — this pertains to Ms Carey’s testimony. The tribunal report states this was “indicative of a desire for secrecy”. Can the Taoiseach state why there was a desire for secrecy? I understand the total of the donation was £4000 and that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, was chairman of the organising committee. The largest donation given was £5000 for the Wicklow by-election in 1995. There appears to be a conflict of evidence over how this donation came

865 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Catherine Murphy.] about. The Minister testified that the donation arose from an inquiry made to him by Ms Carey as to whether Mr O’Brien or Esat could be of assistance to the party. He said it was in this context that he mentioned to her the forthcoming Wicklow by-election fundraising lunch. However, Ms Carey told the tribunal it was her understanding that Mr O’Brien had himself spoken to Deputy Hogan and had agreed to make the payment. In his report, Mr Justice Moriarty sides with Ms Carey’s account. I have two final questions before I conclude. Has Mr Denis O’Brien made any other donation to Fine Gael other than those listed by the tribunal and has the Minister, Deputy Hogan, ever enjoyed a business relationship with Denis O’Brien? Also, has the Minister met or communicated with Mr. O’Brien since the tribunal?

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue. After 14 years we are no closer to a just conclusion to the allegations of corruption in the allocation of the second mobile telephone licence to Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone in 1995. It might have been thought that after 14 years, costs of over €40 million and a 2,000 page report the matter would finally be clarified but that is not the case. The two people most involved, former Minister, Deputy Michael Lowry, and Denis O’Brien deny the accusations made by Mr. Justice Moriarty in his report. Now it is up to them, if they wish, to mount a challenge in the High Court. The whole saga is very damaging for our international reputation and the rule of law in our society. It sends out a wrong message to people all over the world looking at our country and its current dire situation, not to mention the effect on ordinary people, those out of work, those struggling to maintain businesses and those with family difficulties, not to mention the issues with regard to the economy. Previous Governments should have been more focused on providing fairness and equality and honest opportunities to everybody. If illegal or criminal activity is suspected on the part of any individual, that should be a matter for the Garda and the DPP. It is unlikely that we will ever get to the bottom of this controversy or bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. However, there is a strong possibility of further legal hearings and further costs for taxpayers. For that reason the use of these ineffective and outrageously expensive tribunals of inquiry must be questioned. What is the benefit of not referring such issues to the courts and normal legal structures of the State from the outset? The State either operates according to the rule of law or does not. I strongly believe that anybody who steps outside the law, no matter who, should be investigated by the Garda and the case should then be sent to the DPP and the file sent on for prosecution. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has significant powers to prosecute but everyone is entitled to be considered innocent until proved guilty. If we lose this process, we lose something of serious value for the country. In recent days there has been unbalanced media commentary. I do not blame the media for this but refer to allegations of possible telephone tapping. I wonder why these allegations have come out now. They demonstrate how removed the whole drama has become from people’s daily lives. This has become a trial by media, twitterings and other forms. Given the crisis facing this country, the immediate and damning effect of this scandal is that the suggestion of corruption will further deter foreign investment. It will deter the interest of our own entre- preneurs and prevent them from getting involved in business and bringing forward their ideas with passion. It will also deter foreign investment lending and international co-operation, which will further undermine our people’s confidence in the institutions of the State. This is a serious issue at a time when we are trying to renegotiate our interest rates, the so-called bailout and other matters at European and international level and at a time we face a forthcoming visit of

866 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Heads of State of major powers. It is also damaging to the body politic and to our situation as a nation. The Moriarty tribunal report shows that after 14 years of evidence gathering, any final resolution to the case is unlikely and that costs can only soar further as the case progresses. There- fore, I suggest that the most important challenge for the House is to enact the reforms about which all parties have been talking to ensure that these circumstances cannot be repeated. Oireachtas committees have a powerful role in this regard. They have done valuable work in the past but the Abbeylara case interrupted that work. It is in committees these matters should be investigated. The sad and shameful list of tribunals set up in recent years makes evident the need for fundamental reform and a cultural change. I will not bore the House with the list of tribunals because Members are well aware of them and the time and costs involved. It is sad that nobody can be prosecuted by the tribunals and they have no basis in law. It is a sad list of events that led to the necessity to establish such a series of tribunals because of the alleged unlawful activity of people in public office who were supposed to serve the people. This is one of the ways through which Ireland portrays itself to the world. Therefore, I call on the Government to prioritise the reform of public service and procedures so as to put an end to this shameful state of affairs and bring back integrity to the forefront of Irish political life. There should be only one rule of law for every man, woman and child in the country and the matters in question should have been referred to the Garda. Why should we wait for 14 years of investigation by a tribunal, at enormous cost? We have seen the huge costs and seen the bill grow. The bill is close to €42 million currently but that does not include third party costs or applications for legal aid which have yet to be reviewed and adjudicated on. If Mr. O’Brien has so much money to throw around I call on him now to make some of it available to charity, for example to a children’s hospital, so as to create good will and restore his own good name.

Deputy Thomas Pringle: Yesterday in the House, the Taoiseach said that Deputy Lowry and the Moriarty tribunal report represented a culture typified by arrogant, mercenary and immoral politics that almost ruined our reputation. I believe the report represents one of the last shovels of dirt on the grave of our reputation, rather than a proverbial nail in the coffin. 5o’clock The Moriarty tribunal report states that Deputy Lowry had an indirect and insidious influence on the awarding of the second mobile telephone licence and that he and others then went on with wholesale falsification, concealment and delay that confirms the validity of the report’s findings. Does a referral of the report to the DPP and the CAB mean we will see further delays and inaction? I am reminded of the length of the time it has taken, after the collapse of Anglo Irish Bank, to see any arrest taking place in the context of the clear fraudulent activity that went on there. I also listened with interest to Deputy Lowry’s contribution yesterday to see if there could be an alternative interpretation put on the report. All I heard was more of the complaints to which we have been treated since the report was published. I believe that Deputy Lowry feels hard done by, but because he is the person who was caught. Sadly, the kind of influence he brought to bear on the process is nothing unusual in our society. The only thing that is different is the scale of the rewards to the individuals involved. In 1995 and 1996, money was flowing into Fine Gael to clear off its massive debts of over £3.5 million. Deputy Lowry was widely touted as the financial messiah that had saved the party. Now we know how that was achieved. In the run up to the recent general election, I am sure that money flowed to Fine Gael and probably the Labour Party as well, as the Galway tent

867 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Thomas Pringle.] route had dried up and Fianna Fáil was clearly on the way out. The money and the influence has to find a home. As long as we have a political system that is funded by vested interests, politicians can be bought to provide favours, contracts and the rest, and the system will never change. It is time that the Government lived up to its promises and banned corporate and individual donations from people who could have an interest in State contracts. There are three things that the Government can do. First, Fine Gael and the Labour Party should publish all the donations they have received in the last year and show us that they are serious about changing our political system. They can also ensure that those who obstructed the Moriarty tribunal are made to pay when an order for costs is made against them, especially in light of Supreme Court judgments made in respect of the Flood tribunal. Any changes required in the law to make that happen should be made. The Taoiseach can also announce to this House the deals that have been done with Deputy Lowry and the other two Independents who supported his election as Taoiseach a couple of short weeks ago. Maybe then we might believe that the Moriarty tribunal and other tribunals are to be a thing of the past.

Deputy Seamus Healy: I accept the findings of the Moriarty tribunal. While I fully accept the right and entitlement of the people of north Tipperary to elect Deputy Lowry to Dáil Éireann, I believe that in the circumstances, he should resign. In light of this report, there is a need for a fundamental change of ethos in Irish politics if political life is to be redeemed. We have heard more of the same in this report. We have experienced Bertie Ahern and dig outs, banks waiving the debts of politicians, Ben Dunne and Charlie Haughey, Ben Dunne and Michael Lowry, Denis O’Brien and Fine Gael, and we have also seen the huge planning debacle. The interface between business and politics in this country has been a cancer in the body politic, and this will remain the case unless there is fundamental change. There has been much talk recently that clientelism in Irish politics is about fixing potholes. The real clientelism in Irish politics is about the process through which political parties become clients of the very rich, including tax exiles. There is no wealth tax in existence in this country. The banning of corporate and individual donations is absolutely necessary and must take place, but that is not sufficient. The State must fund the political system and it can do that in a very modest way. It can also level the playing pitch for everybody involved in the political process as a result. That would be a small price to pay. There is also an absolute necessity for electoral reform, and I believe there is a need to legislate for a popular initiative whereby people can rescind Acts passed and decisions made by governments, particularly governments under the influence of the rich. This particular procedure is available in some European states and in some states in the US. There should be a facility for constituents to recall TDs and Ministers in the event of something occurring that is similar to what we have seen in this report. There has been much talk about the introduction of a list system as part of general reform. If we had such a system for the 2007 general election, then we could have had Mr. Seán FitzPatrick here as Minister for Finance. Was he not an economic guru at the time? I want to emphasise that I am absolutely opposed to the list system. Not only do we need to ban corporate and individual donations, but the funding of political parties and politicians through the State is absolutely essential if the cancer in the system that we have seen over a long number of years is to be destroyed.

868 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Clare Daly: I want to take the opportunity to make a couple of comments on this disgraceful episode in Irish corporate and political life, which clearly exposes the link between big business and politics. It was laughable to listen to Deputy Martin this morning trying to goad the Taoiseach about the close relationship between Fine Gael and big business. Perhaps he was a bit jealous at how good Fine Gael is in this respect. While that might have demon- strated an enormous brass neck, the reality is that when the Taoiseach was answering questions this morning, he clearly accepted the Moriarty report’s findings on the actions of Deputy Lowry, but he was much more coy about the report’s implications for the Fine Gael Party. I am not really surprised, because the report is as much an indictment of Fine Gael as it is of Deputy Lowry. It gives us a glimpse of the culture of the day. This was a massive and exceptionally lucrative privatisation of a State licence. It was a decision which provided the opportunity for a very small group of people to enrich themselves beyond belief. Is it not unacceptable that a group of Ministers, who sat around the Cabinet table of the rainbow Government and who sit around the current Cabinet table, allowed a situation to develop in which the then Minister with responsibility for communications effectively rushed that decision through, which resulted in Esat Digifone obtaining the licence? Not one of them bothered to ask why that happened. Is it not unacceptable that a Fine Gael TD in that rainbow Government — former communications Minister Jim Mitchell — was a paid adviser to Mr. Denis O’Brien while he was sitting as a serving TD at the time the Government was awarding the licence? Can the Government explain how Esat Digifone was given exclusive rights to access Garda stations for the erection of its mobile phone masts, shortly after obtaining the licence? Let us be clear. Esat Digifone was allowed to erect these masts without planning permission. While the State’s own mobile phone company, Eircell, had to go through lengthy planning permission in order to erect mobile phone masts, Esat Digifone was given exclusive rights to Garda stations without the need for any planning permission whatsoever. That is one hell of a free ride and unfair advantage. It is a matter of public record that as a result of this venture, Mr. Denis O’Brien netted himself a clear £250 million profit. This did not generate any revenue for the Irish taxpayer, given his tax exile status. This decision set up Mr. O’Brien’s wealth. It was the plateau on which he later built a multi-billion euro empire. I support any investigation to be carried out by the likes of the Criminal Assets Bureau, because anybody who privately enriches themselves in that way owes such money to the taxpayer. I would like to speak about the role of the Judiciary, which has featured significantly in this debate. I do not subscribe to the view that the Judiciary is some form of modern deity. It is not the case that its decisions cannot be called to account, that it is beyond reproach or that it is always right in any scenario. There have been enough poor judicial decisions to give rise to an understanding of why that might not be the case. The members of the Judiciary should be accountable for what they do. Having said that, I would like to make it clear that the idea that the judge who compiled this report decided over a decade ago, for some unknown reason or reasons, to start a vendetta against Deputy Lowry and Denis O’Brien and has carried a grudge ever since does not hold any sway. There is no reason that such motivation would be present. We should accept it is much more plausible that a Deputy who has previously misled the House and the Revenue Commissioners would have such questions to answer. I will conclude by emphasising that this episode can teach us some valuable lessons about the privatisation of semi-State companies that is planned by this Government. Such lessons should be learned.

869 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: If the figures provided by the Taoiseach during his speech on the programme for Government are correct, some 9,000 people have left this country since the recent general election. In other words, the equivalent of the combined populations of Roscommon town and Carrick-on-Shannon have emigrated. At a time when we should be dealing with such an emergency, we are tied up with this charade. I do not know whether it was more difficult to listen to Deputy Lowry telling us he has been done wrong, to people in Fine Gael telling us they want to change things in the future even though they benefited from the old system to get elected, or to people in Fianna Fáil talking about how they are bothered by corruption. I have made up my mind — I am most bothered by Fianna Fáil coming in here to talk about corruption. I listened to Deputy Calleary earlier when he spoke about those who think we are “all at it”. In his opinion, why do people think politicians are “all at it”? Why do they think we are all on the take? It is fairly obvious that one of the main reasons they hold that opinion is that his party has proven in the past, and will probably prove in the future, that not all politicians are whiter than white. When I listened to Deputy Lowry as he read his script yesterday, I thought he sounded convinced that he has been wronged. I suppose if one did not know an awful lot about it, one could have been slightly convinced by him yesterday. Regardless of what he says, at the end of the day his case does not add up. I know who I believe. I believe Mr. Justice Moriarty rather than Deputy Lowry. That we needed a tribunal in the first place is what really confuses me about this whole situation. Deputy Lowry is not the only politician to have been investigated by this State for the last 14 years. After I ran in my first general election in June 1997, the State clearly started to investigate me. There was no need for a tribunal for someone like me. The State simply sent the Garda Síochána after me. If Deputy Lowry believes he has had a stressful 14 years, he should think again. He should try being strip-searched on six occasions. He should try being searched on 18 other occasions. He should try being incarcerated on two occasions. He should try having his friend’s children pulled out of a bed in the middle of the night by those who are investigating his activities. He should try having the State threaten his future and that of his children. If Deputy Lowry tries all of that, he will see what is stressful. As far as I can see, when the State wants to protect important people, it organises a tribunal. There is one rule for one class of people and another rule for those who do not have money to do their talking for them. Last week, I was deemed to be such a threat to the future of this State that an editorial in the magazine of the Garda Representative Association, Garda Review, expressed unease about my election to the Dáil. My crime was not creaming hundreds of millions of euro or pounds from the State, taking backhanders, allowing people to die on hospital trolleys or shuffling money around the world as a tax exile. My crime was to allow a seed to germinate — shock, horror. Many other people are committing such terrible crimes at the moment, but they will not be treated as Deputy Lowry has been treated. How serious is the State about going after real wrongdoers? Will there be an editorial in next month’s Garda Review calling for an end to political corruption? Will it call on the State to change its tax laws so that people like Denis O’Brien pay their fair share? If there was a few more quid in the State, the members of the Garda might not have to pay the universal social charge. The reason I do not think we will see such editorials is that this country has one law for the rich and another law for the poor.

870 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Now that the matters in the Moriarty report have been passed on to the Garda, it is important for the force to act with the same level of urgency as it does when it is dealing with the average person. If that does not happen, the people of Ireland will lose faith in politicians and the law forever more, which would be a sad day. Approximately a month before the general election, a nice Polish man told me that I make a bad politician. When I asked him why, he told me it is because I keep telling the truth. Is that not a sad indictment of what people think about politicians?

Deputy Michelle Mulherin: Earlier today, Deputy Adams argued that by passing a motion of censure against Deputy Lowry, we would send a strong message to the public about the disdain of this House for the events and forms of behaviour that are described in the Moriarty report. What is the message to which Deputy Adams refers? Should we pass a motion of censure that imposes no consequences or penalties on Deputy Lowry? If we find him guilty in such a manner, will it be seen as trial by democratic vote? Should we show how indignant and affronted we are in Leinster House as a means of demonstrating that we empathise with the public? The last thing the people need is the bleeding hearts of politicians. In a situation like this, such an approach would do nothing to boost the country’s morale or give people confidence that we are addressing the heart of the problem. This is no more than political posturing on the part of Deputy Adams, who has stolen a march on Deputy Martin on this occasion. It is absolutely unbelievable that it has taken 14 years for the evidence to be heard, conclusions to be reached and the final report of the tribunal to be published. I remind the House that 17 civil servants gave evidence to the effect that they did not see or notice anything untoward. All of this was done at a cost of over €150 million. The matter has yet to be considered by the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The people’s sense of justice has been offended in a manner that compounds the view that there is one law for an elite in our society and another law for the rest of the general populace. It is clear that the system has not worked. It has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to work to achieve justice. Rather than repeating what has already been said, I would like to conclude by asking a couple of questions. The report finds that Deputy Lowry was up to his neck in it, but are the staff damned as well? Can or should they be exonerated, or is there a shadow over the conduct of officials in the entire Department in this matter? When I served as a member of a local authority, my observation was that tenders could not be interfered with. I would like answers to questions about such first principles. How did the whole system break down to the extent that we reached the point we are now at?

An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps Deputy Kelleher would like to avail of the minute that remains before I am required to call Deputy Lowry.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I welcome the publication of the Moriarty report, the findings of which are quite disturbing on many fronts. While I would have preferred more time in which to speak, I will use the minute available to me to emphasise that although the Taoiseach has embraced the findings of the Moriarty report in this House, he has not really embraced the full report. He said that he was exonerated in the report and that Fine Gael, in particular, was exonerated in the report. If the Taoiseach had read the full report, he would know that far from being exonerated, Fine Gael is clearly implicated with regard to its questionable fund- raising activities. I would like to ask the Taoiseach some questions. How many other forms of funds were transferred through Jersey accounts or other off-shore accounts? Was the Telenor contribution

871 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Billy Kelleher.] the only one to be channelled through an off-shore account? This report is a damning indictment of the hermetically sealed tendering process that was put in place by the 1995 Government and undermined by the members of that Government. They met Mr. O’Brien on numerous occasions even though the guidelines from Cabinet clearly stated they could not meet bidders and they had to have witnesses available if they did so. They undermined the position themselves.

Deputy Michael Lowry: I thank the Members of this House for the courtesy shown to me while I made my statement yesterday. I endured only one vitriolic intervention from Deputy Stagg, a man who has endured his own controversy and received compassion from this House in his difficult times. Deputy Stagg threw a nasty slur across the floor of this House intimating that Professor Michael Andersen was paid to give his evidence and he wanted to know who paid him. This is absolutely not true and not even the Moriarty tribunal has ever alleged this. Professor Andersen gave evidence when his long standing request for an indemnity was met. His standing as an expert in the field of mobile telecommunication competitions is beyond reproach. He is also and academic and author of real standing. He was the only expert in this field to give evidence to the tribunal. Just because the Moriarty tribunal could not deal with his stark “inconvenient truths” they simply whitewashed his evidence completely out of the equation. This “let’s pretend Andersen never happened approach” is not a licence for Deputy Stagg or anyone else to cast ill-considered and ignorant aspersions across the floor of this chamber. Would Deputy Stagg wish to cast a slur on all of those witnesses as well? Is he saying that 17 civil servants were paid to give false evidence? Maybe those witnesses were all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the licence competition process 15 years ago and all came together in the 15 years since to perjure themselves consistently before the tribunal? Maybe all of those witnesses were bought and paid for too? The question one asks is could all of them, with Michael Anderson, be wrong. Last night I referred in my opening address to this famous money trail. I want to deal now with the property transactions. It is a fact that no money was ever received into my bank account, my family or any of my business of mine from Denis O’Brien. I have never received any money from Denis O’Brien or from anyone on his behalf. The Moriarty tribunal has engaged in a cynical exercise of presenting two English property transactions and a loan agreement in a slanted and deliberately incomplete manner to give the impression that I was the net beneficiary of €147,000, €300,000 and €420,000, amounting to a total of €900,000 approximately. To give the false and misleading impression that I got €900,000 approximately is an intentional and malicious misrepresentation of the facts. I did not get €900,000. I benefited with a big fat zero from these properties. Let me go through these three properties and dismantle the notion that I walked away with €900,000. The first was the property transaction at Carysfort Avenue in Blackrock. I purchased the property on 17 July 1996. The purchase price was IR£200,000. I was a Minister at the time, which required my attendance in Dublin on a regular basis and I needed a residence in Dublin. I obtained a mortgage for the full purchase price IR£200,000. I entered into a personal loan agreement with David Austin, who is now deceased, for IR£147,000 to fund the refurbishment to make it habitable. This loan was fully documented and drawn up on agreed commercial terms between myself and Mr. Austin. I subsequently had no need for a second home in Dublin. I never occupied the house as renovations had not been completed. I sold the house back to the builder in January 1997. I repaid the mortgage of IR£200,114.55. As per our written loan agreement, I repaid the loan in full together with interest directly to David Austin’s personal

872 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) account on 7 February 1997, which totalled IR£148,816.93. The money trail shows that he spent his own money after it was returned by me. This was a loan, pure and simple. There was no net financial benefit to me in this transaction. The IR£147,000 was received as a loan and repaid on commercial terms in full and with interest. Commentators have referred to the Spanish property. The Spanish property transaction and the loan between Mr. Austin and myself are clearly two separate and distinct transactions. It is not fair to draw a link between them considering the evidence and documentation put before the tribunal. Mansfield was purchased in September 1998, three years after the licence was granted and two years after I was a Minister. I paid the deposit of 10% on this property. I paid for that 10% out of my own bank account. Aidan Phelan paid the balance of the purchase price of £300.000 which he had lodged in the English solicitor’s client account. It is important to remember this money went to the solicitor’s client account and the record proves clearly I never received any money of any description from this solicitor’s client account. To this day, Mr. Phelan and I own that property. Mr. Phelan owns 90% and I retain the 10% which I duly paid for with my own money. My 10% ownership and Aidan Phelan’s 90% ownership is legally reflected in the registered title deed documentation. This Mansfield property still exists. It was never sold and the fact is that my 10% is worth little or nothing today. I received no payment or benefit in this deal. It is a total fiction to say that I got £300,000 from this property. There is no money trail. In 1999, four years after the licence was granted and three years after I was Minster, I negotiated the purchase of a property at Cheadle through a company, CatClause, which was legally registered in my name and the purchase price was £445,000. As I was already in partnership in the Mansfield property with Aidan Phelan — I had 10% of that property as I said — he agreed to pay the 10% deposit on the Cheadle property. I had difficulty in organising finance to complete the purchase and that has been given in evidence by several witnesses. The reason I had difficulty in completing the purchase is because any loan was subject to an independent personal guarantee. I failed to get a bank guarantor so my loan was disapproved. Due to my inability to raise the funds Aidan Phelan took exclusive ownership of the deal. It is a fact that he sold the property years later and it was he who discharged the loan to Woodchester Bank because he was responsible for it and he retained the full proceeds of the sale. All this documentation was given to the tribunal and it was backed up with legal and accounting details. Contrary to the impression deliberately created by Moriarty that I received €420,000, the fact is that I received absolutely nothing from this transaction. There never was €420,000 paid to me by way of loan or otherwise. The alleged €420,000 Cheadle payment is a complete and utter lie. It was proven to the tribunal that I actually did not benefit from any of these transactions. There is no pot of gold at the end of some rainbow in north Tipperary or elsewhere. The financial trail is actually far more mundane and unimpressive than the tribunal would have everyone believe. The evidence and the facts show that the so called money trail goes nowhere. However, in the case of a tribunal, and particularly in the case of this tribunal, opinions do not have to reflect the facts. Opinions can be infinitely more interesting and scandalous because opinions never have to be proven. Every transaction in every bank account that I have had since 1986, either in my name or in the name of my companies, were trawled. The distinction between me and others who have been investigated is that I was able to account for every single transaction in every account. The same went for all accounts held by my late mother, brothers, sister and children. I ask the Members of this House to reflect on the enormous level of intrusion that can be visited upon

873 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Lowry.] a citizen by a tribunal of inquiry. The pressure brought to bear would have been too much for anybody, including me, had it not been for the kind support of my family, friends and supporters. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. This tribunal report is a triumph of innuendo over evidence, a triumph of supposition over fact. It is truly a bad day for Ireland when citizens can be subjected to the incredible levels of ridicule and contempt that I and others have endured on the basis of unsubstantiated opinion. I have endured it with great strain but I refuse to buckle under it. My conscience is clear. I do not accept Michael Moriarty’s baseless opinion and I will not apologise for something I did not do. I have a life and a career and I will go back to these. I am still standing. I know that I have a valuable and worthwhile contribution to make and I intend to make that contribution. Deputy Martin, Fianna Fáil and others can continue to make me a political football by way of a politically convenient censure motion. It is my intention to contribute to that debate, whether it is constitutional or not, and highlight the hypocrisy of Deputy Martin in his career in politics. However, when the debate is over, I will not give my detractors the satisfaction of putting the motion to a vote. The House is free to pass the motion, but I advise the House that I have no intention of resigning my position as a democratically elected representative. I will not walk away from the overwhelming mandate that was given to me by the constituents of north Tipperary and south Offaly. I also emphatically reject the sneering and snide references to gombeen politics and parish pump politics that seem to delight certain sections of the media. Contrary to what might be suggested in the media, the constituents of north Tipperary are every bit as intelligent and politically sophisticated as in any other part of the country. I am proud to serve the people of north Tipperary. I have performed my role as their elected representative to the very best of my ability and I will continue to do so until they decide otherwise. The Moriarty tribunal has not done the State some service. In the fullness of time, its contribution will be exposed for what it is: a scandal of epic proportions. In recent days, the media have misrepresented a number of facts, particularly about the position of the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Garda authorities. Yesterday evening the Garda authorities issued a statement clarifying their position. I have been bombarded with suggestions from the news media, particularly radio and television, that the CAB is already investigating matters. The media should not present hypotheti- cal scenarios as the truth. It is sensationalism of the highest order. The media have been notified of the facts by the Garda representative body and the press office. As late as an hour ago I contacted the Office of the Garda Commissioner to establish the factual position. In any case in which a tribunal report is given to the Oireachtas, it is also submitted to the relevant authorities, including the Garda, for their observations and comments and so that they may pursue the matter if there is something to pursue. Rather than presenting this to the public as a fait accompli, the media should report the reality, which is that the Garda is examining the report. If there are questions to be answered, I will be happy to answer them. In these circumstances, we are dealing with real facts and real evidence, and that will be the key test. I have explained my position to Dáil Éireann. I intend to remain as a Member of this House. I will await the outcome of the Garda examination. If the matter is pursued, I will obviously defend myself, as others will. I will await the decision of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and then I will make a decision about what the future will hold with regard to this report. There are options available to me in my own jurisdiction and outside it, including the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Let us wait

874 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) and see whether the opinions of Mr. Justice Moriarty hold up under the scrutiny of the law of this land.

An Ceann Comhairle: The order of the House states that Deputy Lowry has 20 minutes to speak, after which we will move on to a 60-minute question and answer session. As Deputy Lowry has not used the full 20 minutes, we can now proceed to the question and answer session.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The Taoiseach is not present, although he indicated to me yesterday that he would take questions on Fine Gael’s involvement in this matter with regard to finances received by Fine Gael from Mr. O’Brien.

An Ceann Comhairle: The order I have before me states that a Minister or Minister of State shall take questions no later than 5.40 p.m. for a period not exceeding 60 minutes.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I seek clarification——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is what was agreed by this House and we will proceed with it. If the Taoiseach intends to come to the House, he may be under the impression that there are still five minutes to go, because Deputy Lowry did not use his full 20 minutes. I cannot tell the Deputy whether the Taoiseach——

Deputy Micheál Martin: I suggest that we suspend for five minutes until the Taoiseach arrives.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister must move any suspension.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The reason is that the Taoiseach indicated there would be——

Deputy (Deputy e; Pat): I was under the impression that Deputy Martin wanted to ask me some questions.

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes. We can get on and ask the Minister questions.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I am present. I advise Deputy Martin to contain himself in respect of Fine Gael. I am sure the Taoiseach is on his way.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We did communicate with the Ceann Comhairle’s office.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot all start making our own rules. The rules are quite clear.

Deputy Micheál Martin: A Cheann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: Excuse me. I am adhering to the rules as laid down in the House. The order stated that Deputy Lowry would have 20 minutes. He used 15 minutes. There are five minutes remaining, so I am moving on to the question and answer session, which was ordered to take place not later than 5.40 p.m. If Deputy Martin wishes to put a question, I ask him to proceed. I am sure he will get an opportunity to ask further questions if the Taoiseach arrives.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The position of the Opposition parties should be respected.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am respecting it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: If I may make a comment——

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes.

875 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach made it clear that he would come to the House. I will explain why this is important. We have only 60 minutes and we have not been given any indication of how this will be divided between members of the Opposition. The Taoiseach said he would answer questions only about Fine Gael fund-raising and that the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, would deal with questions about the awarding of the licence. I do not agree with that division. I have particular questions, as do other members of my party, for the Minister, but——

An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest the Deputy put his questions because I am taking the question and answer session.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I want to put on the record that it is unacceptable that the Taoiseach is not present. He said he would be here to answer specific questions about Fine Gael funding.

An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps he will be here, I do not know. I am going by the order that was made by this House, which was that after Deputy Lowry’s contribution we would have a 60-minute question and answer session with either a Minister or a Minister of State. The Mini- ster for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, is present, so if anybody wishes to put a question I ask him or her to do so. Does Deputy Martin have a question?

Deputy Micheál Martin: Yes. As I outlined yesterday in my speech, on 2 March 1995 a memorandum went to Cabinet setting out the process for the awarding of the mobile licence. The guidelines were clear, as outlined by the Cabinet, in terms of how Ministers should behave: any meeting with bidders should be attended by at least two extra witnesses, and these should be recorded immediately; and social exchanges with bidders should be avoided. The Cabinet agreed that this was essential to ensure the transparency and objectivity of the competition. The point I made yesterday was that it is in the major deviations from the content and spirit of the process agreed by the Cabinet on 2 March 1995 that the most serious issues arise for Ministers of the then Government. Does the Minister accept that the guidelines, which were intended to protect the integrity of the process, were breached, and that the process was disgracefully compromised by a conspicuous pattern of fund-raising by the Fine Gael Party during a time when the competition was well under way? It is extraordinary that up to €28,000 was raised in a short period while the competition for the licence was under way. Will he accept that it is incredible that no one within the Fine Gael Party shouted stop, and that the conspicuous pattern of fund-raising, specific to a particular donor who was involved in a consortium competing to win the licence, was wrong and inappropriate?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Deputy Martin was incorrect in describing what was decided at Cabinet. Back in March 1995, the Cabinet decided, in accordance with best practice in Europe at the time, there ought to be a competition to decide this issue. The protocol that Deputy Martin thought applied at Cabinet on 2 March 1995 never happened. Once established, the project team, comprising the Departments of Finance and the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, decided on the protocol that ought to guide it in the decision. The Cabinet decision to award the second GSM licence was in accordance with an aide- mémoire brought to the Cabinet a month earlier by Deputy Martin’s former colleague and then Minister, Brian Cowen. He set out the framework and eight criteria that were subsequently used in the ranking for the competition. His ministerial successor did not see any reason to change these. The Cabinet agreed that, in accordance with practice across Europe at the time, there would be a competition. The project team came into being and through a tender process

876 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) brought in consultants from outside, AMI, to advise it. They agreed the protocol that ought to apply. There seems to be conflicting evidence as to whether this was supposed to be entirely ring- fenced from the Minister. On the last occasion, we dealt in some detail with the almost impossi- bility in practical terms of denying all interaction between civil servants and the Minister. The then Secretary General of the Department Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr. John Loughrey, subsequently used the phrase “hermetically sealed”. Deputy Martin is correct that it is the finding of the Moriarty tribunal that the seal of confidence was breached. However, most departmental officials, although most are now retired, believed this was an internal protocol to ring-fence the process from any outside interference or contact. Some of them would also have believed that if they answered a question from the Minister, it would not be a breach of the protocol. It is important to remember a competition was established in accordance with best practice. It was a matter for that competition project group, having drawn up a protocol to guide it, to produce a successful bidder. It was the task of the Minister of the day to report this to the Cabinet. It was not the task of the Cabinet to second-guess it. I am amazed at the commentary outside and in the House during the debate that the Cabinet was somehow defective in the discharge of its duties by not second-guessing the reported outcome of the competition. Instead, such an action would have been to undermine the entire process. The process was to ensure the Cabinet was not involved. Once the process was completed, it was to report who was the successful bidder. To have Ministers second-guessing that would only have been to invite representations from unsuccessful bidders and so forth. The quote that Deputy Martin relied on is nowhere in the report. The report is long enough without him adding some imagin- ary findings to it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I am not adding to the report.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: May I just raise——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will come back to Deputy Martin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Will the Ceann Comhairle explain how this question and answer process will work?

An Ceann Comhairle: No, I will not. I have called Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Is the Ceann Comhairle not going to explain it?

An Ceann Comhairle: No, it will be explained in a moment.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I do not think the Ceann Comhairle is being fair.

An Ceann Comhairle: I want to give a round of questions to those Members who wish to ask a question. Then I will come back to Deputy Martin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We made suggestions in advance as to how this should proceed. The Taoiseach has just arrived in the Chamber and I have been denied an opportunity to ask him a question.

877 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: I am trying to operate the proceedings in accordance with the order made by the House this morning.

Deputy Micheál Martin: This is not being done in a satisfactory manner.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is the Deputy’s opinion.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I happen to be leader of the main Opposition party and the Ceann Comhairle should take this on board.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: There is not much difference in numbers between the Opposition parties.

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes, and I am calling Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: This is farcical at this stage.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I welcome the fact the Taoiseach has joined us in the Chamber and will participate in this question and answer session. Yesterday, the Taoiseach said the Cabinet had directed the relevant Departments to provide a comprehensive report to it within four weeks on the Moriarty report’s recommendations so that appropriate action can be taken. What actions are being contemplated? Has any specific action been contemplated already? Will these departmental reports be published and brought before the Dáil for its consideration? The Taoiseach promised to bring forward legal and constitutional provisions to ban corporate donations to political parties? When will these provisions be introduced? What steps have been considered to protect the public interest and ordinary citizens from any adverse outcomes in actions taken by those who believe they were wronged in the second mobile telephone licence award? This is a legitimate concern. Citizens have already been wronged in the process. It is unacceptable that this may be compounded by our citizens having to take up any outlays that might be adjudged attributable to the State as a result of this debacle, particularly when they have been stretched financially already. Yesterday, Sinn Féin tabled a censure of motion on the Order Paper. Have the Taoiseach and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources considered its wording? Will they provide an opportunity at the conclusion of this question and answer session for the Dáil to unanimously endorse a motion of censure? In my view, and that of my colleagues in Sinn Féin, this would send a clear message from the House. Questions about the relationship between Fine Gael and Mr. Denis O’Brien have been put to the Taoiseach several times. The Moriarty report contained information about payments made to the Fine Gael Party which would appear, in the main, to have been through traditional fundraising activities. It also specifies particular contributions that were directed to constituency fundraising activities. As I asked the Taoiseach’s predecessor before, has he carried out a thorough investigation within his party as to whether any other payments were received either directly from Mr. Denis O’Brien or any company associated with him nationally, regionally or locally? Is the Taoiseach satisfied, and what steps has he taken to be satisfied, that this is the full extent of Mr. O’Brien’s transfer of funds to the Fine Gael Party over the period that was under scrutiny by the Moriarty tribunal over 14 years? Can the Taoiseach give us absolute clarity on this matter?

878 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I agree entirely with Deputy Ó Caoláin that the public interest ought to be the primary concern. Legal proceedings are under way and their purpose is to seek to ascribe responsibility for the wrongdoing of others to the State. In the process, this will run the risk of exposing the taxpayer to paying the bill. That is why my ministerial colleagues on these benches have stressed that they must have regard to these complicated legal proceedings. The question of protecting the public interest means that the first thing one must do is ensure nobody in the current Government makes any remarks in this House that might be used in the subsequent legal proceedings and might expose the taxpayer. God knows the unfortunate taxpayer has been exposed, battered and bruised sufficiently in the past two or three years by our predecessors in government. Our objective is to ensure that does not happen here. For that reason, we are constrained in what we can say. My formal remarks this morning dealt in some detail with changes that have taken place in the 16 years that have elapsed since these decisions were made. There is now a regulatory system that decides this kind of matter at arms length. If spectrum was being auctioned today, it would be a matter for the regulatory authority. It would be free from political or ministerial interference. I had a quick glance at the Sinn Féin motion and I have no difficulty with it. For the legal implications I have just explained, the motion will have to be run by the Office of the Attorney General. In any event, the Taoiseach made it plain in the House this morning, in answering Leaders’ Questions, that it is the intention of the Government to table a motion. With regard to the four weeks injunction on Departments to study the report and to come back with their considered assessments of the action required from each Department to implement the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal report, the purpose was not to produce a compendium of the reports that should be published. Rather, each Department is to take the necessary steps to cause to be implemented the recommendations appropriate to that Department. In referring to the programme for Government and the recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal, the Taoiseach set out a number of matters. The first of these was the abolition of corporate donations. Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about this matter. It is the intention of the Government to bring forward a Bill to terminate corporate donations. One of the Sinn Féin Members, whose name I do not know because I saw him on the monitor and his name was not in the title, was railing against the inadequacy of this measure because it will permit powerful individuals to make contributions qua individuals. The only way to deal with this under our Constitution is to limit the amount such individuals, no matter how wealthy, can make to a political party or politician. It is the intention of the Government to deal with this in respect of the threshold that will apply. One can join a football club or a political party and make a contribution as an individual. People are entitled to join Fianna Fáil, even if they are misguided. Nothing can be done about that. The point of the Cabinet decision to which the Taoiseach referred is that, within four weeks, the Departments must pore over the report and come back with the steps they will take to implement it. Apart from the question of corporate donations, other matters include the registration of lobbyists and legislation for the protection of whistleblowers, which is relevant here. Another matter is the restoration of provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the amendment of the Official Secrets Act to retain criminal sanction only where vital interests of the State are threatened. We will reform legislation governing the relationship between the Minister and civil servants and scrap the rules limiting the evidence of civil servants appearing before Oireachtas committees. Another point is to overturn the Abbeylara judgment. When in opposition I introduced

879 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] a Bill to restore inquiry by parliamentary committee. It was argued in this House that, given the nature of the Abbeylara judgment, a constitutional referendum is necessary. At that time, the banking issue was the topic of discussion in the House. Unlike other Houses of Parliament, there has not been an inquiry into the banking collapse in this country. We are determined to ensure Oireachtas committees will have the power to inquire into matters of public interest as appropriate. These are examples of the issues we intend to bring forward.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach respond to the questions I asked of him? I refer to the censure motion and the exercise in establishing funding donations received by Fine Gael across the board from Mr. O’Brien or associate companies.

The Taoiseach: I hope we will have the serious support of the House in respect of the changes we want to make. I am serious about this. I have asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Justice and Law Reform as a matter of priority to ensure that the two principal items of legislation are brought forward as quickly as possible. I hope to have a full and thorough debate on this. Regarding the question on contributions received from Mr. Denis O’Brien over the period in question — July 1994 to May 1996 — on 21 June 2003 the Fine Gael general secretary wrote to the tribunal of inquiry following the request for information about any contributions made by Mr. O’Brien or any of his companies to Fine Gael. The entire number of 6o’clock contributions he made available was furnished to the tribunal. This included ten constituency events and five national events, one of which was the New York fundraiser that was the subject of the Telenor cheque that we have already dealt with. That information was provided in full to the tribunal. If Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin has other information, I would like to hear it.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach put the information on the record?

The Taoiseach: It was sent to the tribunal. It is not contained in the report but was part of the——

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I do not think it is all in the tribunal report in the detail that I requested.

The Taoiseach: If it is not available——

Deputy Dara Calleary: Will the Taoiseach lay that document before the House?

The Taoiseach: I assume it would have been included with the evidence given in the public sessions of the tribunal. I will check that for the Deputy and revert to him.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I ask that the Taoiseach would put the submission to which he refers on the record of the House. That is reasonable. It would be a proper way to deal with it. My second question related to the censure motion. I ask the Taoiseach to address both matters.

The Taoiseach: I will check to see whether the information to which I referred was part of the public discussions in the evidence given before the tribunal. It was a letter written by Fine Gael after a trawl was conducted throughout all of the constituencies and of the then Deputies and Senators.

880 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

In respect of the censure motion, I understand that the Whips have met and an agreement was reached, but as we speak I cannot give an answer as to what agreement has been reached. I will check the matter before the conclusion of the debate.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Will the Taoiseach check both matters before we conclude the debate?

The Taoiseach: Yes.

Deputy Joe Higgins: In the past two weeks I have noticed when the Taoiseach is asked a series of two or three questions by a member of the Opposition, which we are entitled to do, that he does not take a note of the questions as they are asked and then he forgets to answer perhaps two out of the three. I respectfully ask that the Taoiseach would make a note of each question.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Would Deputy Higgins like to come over to this side of the House?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: An bhfuil cead agam dul go dtí an leithreas?

An Ceann Comhairle: I remind Members that a number of Deputies wish to ask questions. We now have 36 minutes left. Deputies should get on and ask questions please. It is up to the Government to reply.

Deputy Joe Higgins: The matter would be expedited if the Taoiseach answers as well. When I was a humble member of Dublin County Council——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins is still a humble Member.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: He is still a Member.

Deputy Joe Higgins: ——there were a lot of rezoning controversies in 1992 and 1993. Devel- opers and landowners occasionally used to send bottles of wine around to councillors’ homes at Christmas time. It was a sensitive issue and I never accepted them. Keeping that in mind, does the Taoiseach think that two or three years later, in 1995 and 1996, it was appropriate that Mr. Denis O’Brien, an applicant for the most valuable licence in the history of the State, should make no less than 14 donations to the Fine Gael Party, and that the Fine Gael Party, which had the granting of the licence in its power, should accept those donations? Does the Taoiseach not think it was reckless, inappropriate and unethical, in particular to accept a donation for £4,000 from Mr. Denis O’Brien in September 1995, less than two months before the granting of that licence? We now know from the “Dear Denis” letter sent by the current Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, that he expressed the gratitude of Fine Gael to Mr. O’Brien for the barrels of wine that he provided for a gala dinner to the amount of £3,000. Again, that was weeks before the licence was to be granted. Was that not inappropriate, unethical and reckless? The tribunal stated that the licence was awarded as a result of a nefarious relationship between a businessman and a politician. Mr. O’Brien is consequently a billionaire. Telenor made perhaps a billion or more. I did call for the Criminal Assets Bureau to look into the matter; I accept the report is to be sent to it.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should ask a question please.

881 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Joe Higgins: Regardless of all that, does the Taoiseach personally believe that the State should now pursue the recipients of the licence to recover the funds from the profits that were made that properly belong to the people? Does he personally believe that should happen?

The Taoiseach: Deputy Higgins’s party was not formed when the events under discussion were taking place. In so far as fund-raising activities by the Fine Gael Party were concerned, they neither relied upon tents nor balaclavas. In that sense the regulations in force were adhered to. They were changed by that rainbow Government. They have been changed since and they will be changed in the extreme from now on. I made the point about the circuitous route taken by that the infamous cheque from Telenor and that the Taoiseach of the day, the then leader of my party, on being informed of that in the first instance said that it should remain where it was. When the source of the contribution eventually transpired, he demanded that the cheque be returned forthwith, although it had lain in an account for a considerable period before it moved to the general secretary of Fine Gael being drawn on a bank in Dublin in another name.

Deputy Dara Calleary: It was resting in the account.

The Taoiseach: The tribunal recognised that that particular cheque did not benefit Deputy Michael Lowry in any instance and distinguished it from any other contribution in respect of the report.

Deputy Joe Higgins: If that money was wrong then other money was wrong as well.

The Taoiseach: I have made the point that I consider that this was handled incorrectly. I published the advice of the senior counsel that was given to the party on our website last evening. That is there for the Deputy to read if he wishes. In hindsight, the evidence, eminent though it was, should have been overridden by the party. I have said that clearly. I am conscious of the fact that a number of cases are pending. I have heard contributions and public reports about them. It is not for me to adjudicate on whether claims should be made back. That is a matter that will emerge as people make decisions about what they want to do following the publication of the Moriarty report. As I understand, agreement has been reached between the Whips that in respect of the matter of natural justice that it was not possible to take an agreed censure motion this evening but that it will be taken tomorrow morning without debate.

An Ceann Comhairle: The next Deputy indicating was Deputy Michael McGrath. Is he giving way to his leader, Deputy Martin?

Deputy Michael McGrath: Yes. I will give way to him.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Earlier in the debate I was in my office reading and I watched a procession of Ministers come forward to speak in the debate, ably led by the ever-constructive Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Shatter, who proceeded to ignore every substantive fact in the Moriarty report and instead — without a prepared script — attacked me and the Fianna Fáil Party. The election is over. Blaming Fianna Fáil bogeymen for everything simply is not going to cut it anymore. I put it to the Taoiseach that I want real responses to the questions that are being asked. On the pattern of Fine Gael fund-raising between 1995 and 1996, I asked the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, whether he considered it wrong and inappropriate to facilitate that conspicuous pattern of contributions of up to €28,000 from Esat Digifone in a short period at a time

882 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) when a competition for a licence was under way for the single most lucrative contract ever awarded by the State. It is clear from the report that the strategic purpose of that was to build influence within Fine Gael. Does the Taoiseach now accept that it was incredible that no one shouted “Stop” within the Fine Gael Party and that it was wrong and inappropriate? The point on the Telenor payment is that all sorts of benign language is being used about it being “incorrect” and that the money was returned but it was Fine Gael which solicited the donation and issued a false invoice about consultancy work in regard to it. It was Fine Gael which ensured the money went to an offshore account so as to make it covert. Does the Taoiseach accept the covert nature in which that payment and all the other payments were handled? We know from the letter from Sarah Carey to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, about the golf classic that the donor did not wish anyone to know he was making the donation. In the context of a competition, such covert behaviour was wrong and inappropriate. Somebody in Fine Gael should have shouted “stop” regarding the conspicuous lobbying and fund-raising. It was clearly designed to enhance the influence of the consortium on the Fine Gael Party at the time. Was the Telenor donation just an isolated incident? Was it part of a covert corporate fund-raising campaign by Fine Gael? Does that explain how Fine Gael cleared at the time a €1.6 million debt, about which there was no clarity or transparency? Can the Taoiseach assure us that no other donations travelled the same route as the Telenor cheque? The Taoiseach used the phrase “circuitous route” but I would use the phrase “deliberately covert and secretive route”.

The Taoiseach: There was certainly no covert operation within the Fine Gael Party. I found the entire business of the Telenor incident to be absolutely unprecedented. Deputy Martin could have been as vehement about the activities of the person, now deceased, who put this in place. I refer to the €60,000 that went to a former leader of the Deputy’s party but I did not hear the Deputy comment on that. Be that as it may——

Deputy Micheál Martin: Will the Taoiseach deal with the question I asked him?

The Taoiseach: I will deal with the question I was asked. I am making a comment on it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach does not understand its seriousness.

An Ceann Comhairle: Members should speak through the Chair.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is about a contract with the Taoiseach’s Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will Deputy Martin please respect the Chair? I have to ask him to do so constantly.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The Deputy should hold up the mirror.

The Taoiseach: The point is that the person who initiated a phone call to the former leader of my party, Deputy John Bruton, about contributions being available from Telenor was told by the latter that the money should be left where it was. That person made arrangements for a €60,000 payment to a former leader of Fianna Fáil. It was not Fine Gael that arranged for an offshore account, nor was it Fine Gael that arranged for a cheque, drawn in another person’s name, to be sent to the party prior to the 1997 election. It was the Fine Gael general secretary who received the cheque and assumed it was a legitimate contribution according to the regulations at the time. When it became known that the cheque’s original source was Telenor, the leader of the party ordered that it be sent back. That took quite some time but that is what happened.

883 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[The Taoiseach.]

The Moriarty report makes it quite clear that the contribution was unwarranted and unasked for and that the leader of the party ordered that it be sent back. I know of no covert operation. I have never heard of any operation such as that suggested by Deputy Martin. The event in question was quite some time ago. I can put my hand on my heart and say I have no knowledge, good, bad or indifferent, about anything remotely parallel to this ever having happened in the Fine Gael Party. I do not know whether it happened in Deputy Martin’s party. The tribunal and its report dealt with the Telenor contribution as being distinguishable given the way it had arrived. It was sent back by the party when its source became known by the then leader, who gave evidence and testified in respect of the matter.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Was the party fund-raising wrong?

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Dooley.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We just want answers to the questions. There is no point in having——

An Ceann Comhairle: I am trying to be fair to everybody. There are more Members in the Chamber than Deputy Martin; there are many Deputies waiting. Will Deputy Martin please respect the Chair? Does Deputy Dooley want to ask a question?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: They were 15 years around the Cabinet table.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will Deputy Dooley please ask his question?

Deputy Micheál Martin: There is no point in asking questions if we do not get the answers.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Is Deputy Martin bringing back Punch and Judy?

Deputy Micheál Martin: All I want is answers.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Deputy Martin had an opportunity to give answers.

An Ceann Comhairle: Order, please. I ask Deputy Dooley to ask his question.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: According to Deputy Martin——

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Members please respect the fact that there are others in the Chamber?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: We are sorry.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: I want to ask the Taoiseach about a well reported fund-raising dinner that took place in October 1995, two days before the second mobile phone licence was awarded. It has been alleged that a senior member of one of the bidding parties was present at that function. While the fund-raiser clearly falls within the guidelines, as the Taoiseach has suggested, questions obviously arise therefrom. Based on the clear guidelines that were developed by the Cabinet on how one should deal with bidders and their associates, which guidelines refer in particular to the necessity to have two independent witnesses present, could the Taoiseach identify for us those witnesses who were present to ensure that the integrity of the process was maintained? Can he indicate what consortium was represented and the individuals

884 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) concerned? Will he give some broader details to show that the integrity of the process was maintained while the fund-raiser was taking place?

The Taoiseach: I can confirm the position. On 18 June 2003, the general secretary of Fine Gael responded to Mr. John Davis, solicitor for the Moriarty tribunal, in respect of what Deputy Dooley mentioned. The fund-raiser was a constituency fund-raiser for the Mayo constituency. The two attendees in question, Mr. Jan Stenbeck and Mr. Ha˚kan Ledin, were associated with the companies involved with the Eurofone consortium, which was one of the parties listed in the schedule to the letter from the tribunal on 21 January 2003. Both of these gentlemen attended the function uninvited and did not make a contribution. They were invited by the late Sean Murray, who was a partner in Grant Thornton and who paid the contribution. I was obviously unaware of any connection with these people and did not speak to them at all in respect of anything concerning the second GSM licence. This information was provided to the tribunal in the interest of completeness and to assist because, while the two gentlemen were present, they were not invited and did not contribute. It was suggested that, in the interest of being up-front and thorough about this matter, the tribunal should be informed of it when they wrote to Fine Gael. The tribunal assessed and considered that; that is the position.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I welcome the agreement on the motion of censure. I have two very brief questions. One of the Taoiseach’s predecessors, the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, banned corporate donations, but they were then reinstated. Will the Taoiseach explain why he reversed the decision? Given his statement this morning that representations and lobbying by business people ought to be transparent, does he agree that all parties in this House should publish a list of all corporate and business donations? I have never been able to get my head around the fact that we give away natural resources from the Corrib gas field off the west coast of the Taoiseach’s county. Given the content of the Moriarty report and that Deputy Lowry was involved in the issuing licences in connection with the Corrib gas field, should that process be made subject to investigation, but by An Garda this time? Will he refer the matter to it and ensure it will have all the relevant licensing and revenue terms granted to the Corrib consortium?

An Ceann Comhairle: We are talking about the Moriarty tribunal.

The Taoiseach: I am not sure about the relevance of the last question.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not relevant; we are talking about the Moriarty tribunal.

The Taoiseach: We can deal with that from a number of perspectives on other occasions in the House. I have views on the balance between making a location reasonably attractive for exploration in the first instance and the State availing of opportunities either to take equity or higher royalties depending on what might be discovered.

Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: It is very attractive when it is free.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy is aware that we now have sovereign rights over 200 million acres off the west coast, which is an enormous spread, but it is the deep Atlantic and technology has changed.

Deputy Gerry Adams: And we keep giving it away.

The Taoiseach: The State does not have the resources to do this but opportunities exist for positions to be adopted. Last summer, a well was drilled north of Corrib at a cost of €75 million.

885 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[The Taoiseach.] It proved to be without any product, so it is a case of structuring properly the tax situation taking account of technology and attractiveness. In respect of the question on corporate donations being banned, when Deputy Michael Noonan became leader of the Fine Gael Party, he banned corporate donations and none was accepted. When I was elected leader of the party in 2002, it was in a state of some “demotiv- ation” shall we say. I carried out an analysis of our inadequacies in organisation and our capacity to reach out to people and in the party’s ability to promote issues in the interest of the country and people. Unfortunately, it costs money to drive a modern political party. I suppose absolutely transparent State funding of all parties might well be an ideal position but in the current circumstances the electorate certainly would not thank any State for doing this. From the point of view of being able to fight elections and compete with a large and very strong Fianna Fáil Party at the time, obviously the Fine Gael Party had to fund itself and within the legal constraints we did so. Having streamlined our capacity to raise money from our supporters and from persons who support the party throughout the country, it has been well publicised that we were able to raise €1 million or €1.2 million in recent years, 90% of which through the sale of tickets for our national draw to party supporters and others who support the party throughout the country. This is the position. I reversed the decision to ban corporate donations, with the approval of the party, shortly after I became leader. As I stated, we will move on early production of a Bill to ban corporate donations and to end the link between big business and politics. This is not to state there are not people who have always complied with every piece of legislation who want to support parties and who have supported parties and non-parties over the years. Deputy Adams can be clear that our fund-raising activities have complied entirely with the laws of the land. I feel it is time to move to a point of banning corporate donations and we will do this as soon as we can.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies Lowry, Pringle, Ferris, Michael McGrath, Collins, Murphy and Boyd Barrett have yet to speak and 14 minutes remain in the slot. I will take questions from two speakers at a time. I ask Members to ensure their questions are fair to everybody.

Deputy Michael Lowry: Against the background of this report, which is based on opinions, I can understand why the House wishes to table a motion of censure and I have no objection to it. I wish to place on the record my desire that when the Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle are framing the wording of the motion of censure the House does not prejudice my position as a Member of the House and as a former Minister, and that it would not prejudice in any way the action I may take a future date. I am sure the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has been well briefed by departmental officials. Will he confirm that the principal parameters of the competition for the second mobile phone licence were set down and agreed by the previous Government to the one of which I was a member and by my predecessor, Brian Cowen? Will he also confirm that the project team protocol applied only to the project team and not to the Cabinet or to the Minister of the day? It would be entirely impractical and completely unworkable to suggest that this protocol applied to anybody other than the members of the project team. It was the project team that had access to information, not the Cabinet or the Ministers including me. Will he also confirm that the then Government, of which he was a member, was a rainbow government with three leaders, namely, John Bruton, Dick Spring and Proinsias De Rossa. All of the serious decisions were always made in advance; whether it was a day, week, or morning prior to a Cabinet meeting they were cleared in prin-

886 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed) ciple by the three leaders. This was the standard practice when I was a member of that Government. I have been damned by the Moriarty tribunal with regard to the licence because the report suggests that somehow I circumvented a decision of the Government. The protocol and procedures were advised to me by the then Secretary General of the Department, John Loughrey. If the Minister checks his files he will see that I acted at all times on his advice and in line with the clearing process that had become standard in that Government. Will the Minister agree that the idea of the Cabinet of that time being in a position to change a decision of a project team that we as a Government established would have been second guessing? We had an example of second guessing when the Meteor and Orange applications were brought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judges unanimously found that no Government could second guess the decision of an independent team with regard to an application. Does the Minister agree this applies to the decision made in 1995?

Deputy Thomas Pringle: In light of the Taoiseach’s contribution yesterday at the opening of the debate and in light of his desire to have fully open and transparent politics in operation in the House, I ask him to put on the record of the House any deal done with the three Indepen- dent Deputies, namely, Deputies Lowry, Healy-Rae and Grealish, who supported his election as Taoiseach in recent weeks. Will he outline what arrangements were put in place to secure this support?

The Taoiseach: I will deal with Deputy Pringle’s question. No deal was done with any group of Independent Deputies. As the Taoiseach, it is my duty to extend courtesy to every elected Member but no deal, good bad or indifferent, was done. Deputies were quite free to express their vote either way on the election of the Taoiseach.

Deputy Thomas Pringle: Was there access to Ministers?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I have already stated that the tribunal report attributes the genesis of the competition to the former Minister, Mr. Cowen, who was the Minister with responsibility for communications at the time. He brought an aide-memoire to Cabinet and the entire business was discussed as to the merits of an auction system as compared to a “beauty contest” as it was called. Some people have revived the merits of the auction approach. When one examines it one finds that the European Commission had difficulty with a new entrant being treated differently from Eircell. The debate eventually came down in favour of a beauty contest. I refer to a letter from the commission to the Minister which stated: “The commission is not in favour of such an auction procedure for granting mobile licences.” The Irish policy priority in the mid- 1990s was to catch up with developments in the mobile market where we were lagging significantly behind the rest of Europe. The commission intervened and made very plain that it would not permit a situation where the new entrant was treated less favourably than the existing company. The Department of Finance subsequently during the period of the rainbow coalition Government wanted to raise some moneys and that is where the figure of £25 million came from, £15 million from the new licence and £10 million levied in Eircom in a more complex way. Once the Department satisfied its budgetary figures it was happy and it was considered that the best way to get a new entrant into the market was through the beauty contest. The answer to the Deputy’s question is that the parameters were set down by the previous Minister, Brian Cowen and the decision sought from Cabinet by his successor did not really seek to change this in any material way. The decision of the Cabinet was to set up this competition in accordance with best advice at the time. The whole purpose of the competition was that it and not the Cabinet was to do the job. It is true that the protocol was subsequently established by

887 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] the project team and it recruited AMI Consultants by tender. The proposition that somehow the Cabinet should have second-guessed this would be to undermine the very basis of the system that had been agreed. It is a different issue entirely as to whether the protocol worked or whether the process worked as was envisaged. A report was given to Cabinet as to the identity of the successful bidder and the Cabinet is not going to insist on awarding the contract to the number two or a subsequent bidder. This second-guessing would not have been acceptable. The protocol did not apply to the Cabinet as the Cabinet was not involved once it made the decision. It was then a matter for the project team to get on with the business. As the Deputy said, it was a rainbow coalition Government, comprising three parties. I would rather put it that where there were difficult decisions or contentious decisions, it was the practice of the three leaders to meet before Cabinet and to hammer out the points at issue. A system of programme managers was in operation at the time which was a very good system. The programme managers tended to meet a few days before the Cabinet meeting——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister has four minutes remaining.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: ——and they would do a great deal of the work.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: The Minister is working to fill the four minutes.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Pardon, Deputy Dooley?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister to proceed without interruption.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: The Minister should speak slowly so that Deputy Dooley can understand.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Minister to please proceed with his answer.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I cannot understand what is happening, Ceann Comhairle——

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Minister could understand I would appreciate it because I have other Deputies who wish to ask questions.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: ——I am doing my best to impart information, to pay tribute to a former leader of Fianna Fáil who set up this tribunal and all I get is derision from the Oppo- sition benches.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Minister to finish his reply because I want to call on the other Deputies.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Please go ahead, by all means.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputies Martin Ferris, Michael McGrath and Joan Collins to please pose their questions as briefly as possible. They have two minutes and 50 seconds.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I will be brief. In 1995, the then Minister, Deputy Michael Lowry, issued licences to Enterprise Oil. In 1996, the Corrib——

888 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

An Ceann Comhairle: We are dealing with the Moriarty tribunal.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Just one second, please. I have a question for the Taoiseach. Did Enterprise Oil make any donations to Fine Gael from that period?

An Ceann Comhairle: We are dealing with the Moriarty tribunal, please Deputy.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte referred in his contribution to an independent regulator free from political and material interference. Will he ensure that the Commission for Communications Regulation is made directly answerable to the Minister and accountable to an all-party committee so that Members can publicly examine issues arising with regard to communications?

Deputy Michael McGrath: I will be as brief as all the other speakers. The Taoiseach knows that on 2 March 1995 the Government decided that a recommendation would be put by the Minister to Government in time for a final decision on the granting of the licence by the end of October 1995. I refer to the Moriarty report, chapter 61.07:

The intent of the Decision of 2nd March 1995, was that the process should be conducted under the aegis of the Department, and that, whilst a recommendation was to be made to Government by Mr. Lowry, the decision on the winner of the competitive process was reserved to Government.

In other words, it was not for Deputy Lowry or the project group to award the licence but rather it was the Government’s function and responsibility to award it. Can the Taoiseach say how he and every other Minister in the Cabinet allowed the Cabinet and the Government to be bypassed in the awarding of the most valuable licence in the history of the State? In the context of the events of that afternoon of 25 October 1995, when the then Minister, Deputy Lowry, the Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton and Mr. Spring——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is running out of time and there will be no time for a reply.

Deputy Michael McGrath: I have almost concluded.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has 34 seconds and he will not get a reply.

Deputy Michael McGrath: The Taoiseach was late and I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will allow for the fact that the Taoiseach was late.

An Ceann Comhairle: No, I will not. I go by the Standing Orders that allowed 60 minutes.

Deputy Michael McGrath: If I may finish, Mr. Bruton, Mr. Spring, Mr. De Rossa and Mr. Quinn were there. According to the Moriarty report, on the basis of the evidence, they would not have been aware at that time of the concerns of certain members of the project group, of the doubts surrounding the finances of Esat Digifone, of the departures from the evaluation methodology, of how close the result had been——

An Ceann Comhairle: I am sorry, Deputies, we have run out of time.

Deputy Michael McGrath: ——that the work of the Courtyard group had been guillotined. They would not have been aware that the final report from the project group was not even available on that date. Mr. Justice Moriarty said that based on the evidence they would have wished to explore matters beyond the level of consideration given by them on that afternoon

889 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael McGrath.] if they had known these facts. Can the Taoiseach please, for once and all, give an account of what happened on the afternoon of 25 October?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has now used up all the time for the reply. In accordance with Standing Orders I now call on the Minister to reply not exceeding 20 minutes.

The Taoiseach: I could give a ten second reply to that question.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Taoiseach, we have run out of time. In accordance with Standing Orders, I made it quite clear there would be a debate for one hour. I am now obliged under Standing Orders to call on the Minister to reply and he has 20 minutes to do so. I made this quite clear earlier.

Deputy Gerry Adams: On a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle: Everybody knew the rules. We made an order of the House and I am complying with it.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We can change what we agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle: No, that cannot be done. I am calling on the Minister to reply. I am sure he will answer all the questions in his reply. I ask the Minister to proceed.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Ceann Comhairle, you have asked for co-operation——

An Ceann Comhairle: I did not ask for the co-operation of the House. I am complying with the Standing Orders which were agreed. I asked speakers to be unselfish to think of other Deputies but they did not comply. I now call on the Minister and ask him to please proceed.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I wish to pass on a request for the Minister to give——

Deputy Micheál Martin: I want to say it on the record.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I want to place it on the record that we communicated with your office, a Cheann Comhairle, before this debate and you did not respond.

An Ceann Comhairle: How many times do I have to ask you Deputy? I ask the Minister to respond to the debate.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is a farcical way to do business.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not a farcical way to do business; I am doing it in accordance with the order of the House.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Ceann Comhairle should communicate and allow the Whips to communicate with your office.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy was allowed in twice

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is not the point. It is the manner and nature of the debate that got us all into this farce.

890 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Finian McGrath: The injury time for the Independents.

Deputy Micheál Martin: An attempt was made to clarify this that would have made for a smoother operation if we were responded to by your office, a Cheann Comhairle, and by the other Whip, but there was no response.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Minister to proceed, without interruption.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. I again put on record on behalf of the Government our thanks to Mr. Justice Moriarty. I deplore the intemperate attacks made on his integrity and motivation. In saying that I do not take any issue with any Member of the House who wants to dispute a particular finding or wants to dispute a matter of fact from any tribunal report. However, what we heard last night and what we have heard over recent days is simply not acceptable. I thank colleagues on all sides of the House who contributed to the debate and more especially to those who sought to make thoughtful contributions; the report deserves no less. The necessity to restore confidence in politics and the necessity to restore respect for the practice of politics ought to be a democratic imperative to which everyone, including every Member of this House, ought to subscribe. Some speakers certainly sought to do that. Some speakers in particular went out of their way to acknowledge that the programme of reform contemplated by the Government goes much further and represents a sea change in the practice of politics in this country, if implemented. Unfortunately other contributions sought to make political capital from the debate, which I suppose is to be expected; I will come back to that in a moment. All sides are agreed that the acid test for the present Government is implementation of its programme of reform. The real litmus test is how the Government will react to the recommendations in the report and to the recommendations in the programme for Government. I again confirm that we are interested in a radical reform of parliamentary and institutional issues. Institutional and parliamentary reform is quite distinct from the issue of corporate donations which has tended to dominate the discussion. Corporate donations and the influence that might come from them is one aspect of this debate. However, apart entirely from that our institutions are in need of radical reform as is the way we do business in this House. The Government is determined to carry through that programme of reform. I believe Deputy Calleary made the point that in listening to some of the debate inside and outside the House one would get the impression that this was a particularly corrupt democracy. He went on to make the point that a very small number of Members of this House have abused their positions, with which I agree. Some commentators fairly make that point and others do not. Whether it is for the purposes of selling newspapers or whatever, they paint it in the most garish light possible and they get considerable assistance from some Members of the House here in trying to do that.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The Minister is pretty good at that himself — the letter that rocked the nation.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Deputy Kelleher is sitting beside the man who is the leading graduate of the academy of financial jiggery pokery that was Fianna Fáil for so many years. He comes in here, puts on his Mother Teresa face and starts lecturing us on these issues.

(Interruptions).

891 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: In that case the Deputy should not walk into it. I do not know very much about the funding of Fine Gael——

Deputy Michael McGrath: If the Minister reads the report he will.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: ——but in all fairness I cannot believe Deputy Martin made the contribution he did. His younger colleagues were very careful to take the report on its merits and to look forward. They wanted to see whether the Government will implement the reforms. However, you came in with no other purpose than to seek to link what has transpired to Fine Gael in the futile attempt to damage the Government.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I did not do that; the Moriarty report did that. Is the Minister talking to me?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I am talking to the Deputy through the Chair. I regretted that because he is the Deputy from whom we heard so much during the general election campaign about new politics. He gave all sorts of assurances through all his interlocutors that politics would not and could not go on as it went on before and he would do it differently. He claimed there would be no more Punch and Judy politics. He comes in here a couple of weeks later and is back in the same old routine for those of us in the House long enough to remember what Fianna Fáil was like in opposition. Deputy Martin does not have the troops now to muster that kind of response. He appeared on Pat Kenny’s radio programme today and when asked whether his criticisms of Deputy Lowry were not hypocritical given that Fianna Fáil relied on Deputy Lowry for a majority in this House for so many years, he said “Ah, sure we didn’t know then what we know now”.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I did not say that.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: He did; I have the transcript.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It is a pity somebody did not tell us about the banks. Who said that?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I also have the transcript of the McCracken report, which Deputy Martin and Mr. Ahern had before they entered into the deal with Deputy Lowry. That report was very clear in stating:

It is an appalling situation that a Government Minister and chairman of a parliamentary party can be seen to be consistently benefiting from the black economy from shortly after the time he was first elected to Dáil Éireann...Ifsuch a person can behave in this way without serious sanctions being imposed, it becomes difficult to condemn others who similarly flout the law.

Deputy Martin had that report and he also knew it when his party renewed the deal in 2007. All of what we are discussing here was already in the public domain yet Fianna Fáil entered into the deal to rely on Deputy Lowry, and Deputy Martin now comes into the House and behaves as if he cannot remember his name.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The Taoiseach invited him back into Fine Gael.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I find it very difficult to keep up with that. He also criticised the inadequate time provided.

892 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is in the Moriarty report, the substance of my contribution. The Minister has studiously avoided it.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I know what is in the Moriarty report but a number of people on the other side who wanted a debate on it last week could scarcely have read the cover, never mind the report. They were complaining about the Taoiseach not conceding a debate last week or complaining about the Taoiseach avoiding questions on it when he came in here about an hour after receiving it. There was such humbug about the Taoiseach avoiding answering questions. Deputy Martin had three opportunities each day to ask the Taoiseach on Leaders’ Questions about this issue if he wanted to do it and to give the rest of us an opportunity to read the report, and then come in and discuss it. However, a number of Deputies, including Deputy Ferris, wanted us to discuss it immediately before any of us read it. That does not do——

Deputy Billy Kelleher: You still have not read it.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: We have, and in considerable detail. Furthermore, we have allowed a two day debate a week after its publication. Some two months after findings of the McCracken report against Mr Haughey were published Fianna Fáil finally conceded a debate on it for 90 minutes. It is a great help to have people to check things for you; I was used to doing it for myself. I asked someone to check what happened and the person found that Deputy Martin voted against an amendment to allow questions and answers after the 90 minute debate. After all of Mr. Haughey’s depredations and the voluminous report, we came in to discuss it, we got 90 minutes and no questions and answers. We tabled an amendment for questions and answers and Deputy Martin voted against it.

Deputy Jerry Buttimer: Punch and Judy.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: That is the track record and it does not augur well for the future. How he conducts the business of his party is entirely a matter for Deputy Martin. However, as far as a new agenda is concerned it seems to me that there is very much an old agenda and nothing has really changed. A number of points were raised. Deputy Pringle wanted to know whether the Government would demonstrate good faith and introduce a Bill to impose costs on those who obstructed tribunals. That is not necessary. As most Deputies in the House will know, it is a matter for the sole member to make a decision about costs and no doubt he will make that decision in due course. It is not my business to seek to influence him but no legislation is necessary to give him the powers Deputy Pringle seeks. Deputy Calleary wanted to address the question of inquiry by parliamentary committee and since the Deputy intended it in good faith I am not going to ask why he did not do much when he was on this side of the House. Many years have passed since the Abbeylara judgment. I do not want to keep picking on Deputy Martin but I cannot see any other faces on the other side of the House who were in the last Government. In all the years since the judgment there has been no attempt to refurbish the law on inquiry by parliamentary committee. Everyone in the House knows there were very particular reasons for the Abbeylara judgment. Most people in the House know that there is a question mark over the wisdom of the inquiry having been embarked on in the first place by parliamentarians because it came hot in the wake of the DIRT tribunal. The issues involved in tax evasion in the DIRT inquiry were completely different from a case where a man died.

893 Moriarty Tribunal Report: 30 March 2011. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.]

It is not a matter for parliamentarians to adjudicate on the killing, lawful or otherwise, of a man in those circumstances. In any event, the Abbeylara judgment struck down, in a very particular way and within a very definite rubric, inquiry by parliamentary committee. We have been waiting for the best part of ten years to see the law refurbished on that and it has not happened. This Government has agreed to do it. Deputy Calleary pleaded for a committee system that is less plentiful than that of the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, where anybody who did not get a chocolate sweet as a Minister of State became chairman of a committee. It is not the best basis for establishing a committee structure. Deputy Calleary recommended that there ought to be a more considered approach to the committee architecture on this occasion. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of the work done by many of the committees established by the former Government and the one before it was immensely good. When our friends in the media criticise this House, they should note that they have not reformed themselves much. They are not in a position to cover much of the work done in many of the committees. For example, most of the media makes arrangements to cover the Commit- tee on Public on Accounts but they are not geared up to cover all of the committees in the House. They would see that immensely good work is done, notwithstanding the proliferation that happened under the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I am satisfied that it would show this House in a good light if the committee system was re-established with a purpose, such as that which Deputy Calleary had in mind. I do not think that any Member of this House believed that he or she would see the day where there was agreement between the parties on the banning of corporate donations. I do not believe that any Member of this House would have thought that such a sea change would have happened in Irish politics. I do not know what happened in the previous Government. The Green Party element of the previous Government pledged that it would introduce a Bill to ban corporate donations. It is still where it was, in the ether. The previous Government never enacted it and that is the test.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Bill is there.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: It was not enacted and the Government sent poor former Deputy John Gormley away without one of the trophies he had promised his people. It was an admirable objective on his part but one which he failed to implement, I presume because of obstruction by the other party in that Government. Given what has happened in politics as I 7o’clock understand it — Deputy Martin can correct me if I am wrong — Fianna Fáil has committed to supporting the Government’s position on that issue which is a remarkable change and one which I welcome. We will give him the opportunity to vote on it as soon as possible. There is a very tight timeframe, four weeks, to meet the Taoiseach’s injunction that individual Departments revert to him with proposals for the implementation of the Moriarty report as it relates to them. Apart from that, when the programme for legislation is published colleagues will see a number of measures that are designed to restore respect for and confidence in politics in this House. As I said, that will be the litmus test of the reaction to this affair. It is unfortunate that something that transpired 16 years ago is only now being debated in the House. It obviously is not acceptable that the inquiry into something of such importance and public interest should take the length of time we have experienced. The report goes into

894 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) considerable detail in explaining why that happened but we have to take the responsibility on ourselves to inquire in a more speedy, effective and cheaper way into issues like this. The DIRT inquiry brought a lot of kudos to this House and restored confidence in it for many tens of thousands of our citizens because they could see for themselves the work that was being done, apart entirely from the €1 billion that was recovered for the Exchequer. Apart from that, the citizen could see for himself or herself the performance of politics in this House and when we restore inquiry by parliamentary committee it will enhance the quality and value of scrutiny of measures in this House in the future.

Private Members’ Business

————

Universal Social Charge: Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by Deputy Pearse Doherty on Tuesday, 29 March 2011: That Dáil Éireann: recognises that: — the Universal Social Charge is an unjust and regressive tax, bearing down most heavily on those least able to afford it; — the Universal Social Charge affects people earning as little as €77 per week; — the Universal Social Charge is indiscriminate and affects someone earning €100,000 at the same rate as someone earning €16,016; — low income workers, including medical card holders, working lone parents and working widows, who were exempt from the health and income levies which the Universal Social Charge replaced, are no longer exempt; — coupled with the changes to tax credits and bands introduced in Budget 2011, the Universal Social Charge has increased the burden of taxation on the working poor; and — even though the levy system was flawed, there was a greater level of progressivity in it; and calls on the Government to: — abolish the Universal Social Charge; — as an interim measure, reinstate the health and income levies; and conduct an immediate impact assessment of levies as part of overall reform towards a streamlined and progressive taxation system.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1: To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following: “recognises that: — the programme for Government states that the universal social charge will be reviewed; — the reinstatement of the income and health levies would bring poverty traps back into the system; and

895 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

— the appropriate time to make any amendments to the universal social charge is after the review.” —(Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes). Deputy Michael Moynihan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the debate on the universal social charge. If I may, with the permission of the Chair, comment on the previous debate, the Abbeylara committee of which I was a member was one that challenged many legal positions that the Houses of the Oireachtas had not foreseen. On the universal social charge, I suppose there is not a politician in any party who did not find it hotly debated on every doorstep the length and breadth of the country right up to 25 February. Having voted it through, my party was certainly getting more stick than most in this regard. It certainly had an impact on people. The universal social charge was one of the main issues in the election. However, as we must be realistic in our debate and on how we go forward as a nation, the simple facts of the matter are we are spending more money as a nation than we are earning and we must address that fundamental issue. There were discussions on broadening the tax base and I suppose the issue at which we must look is how will we get enough money to bring down the deficit and ensure the deficit is maintained. We looked at many issues in the past Government and the simple fact was there was a significant amount of people who were outside the tax net. That had to be looked at because in any democracy one must balance the books. As the Government has changed and the roles are reversed in a dramatic form since the election, a review of the social charge is promised. We can have a review of the social charge, but the figures will not change. The reality is that we, the Parliament and the people, must implement tough decisions that will impact on the lives of everybody. We have done so over the past two and a half to three years since the economy went into a tail spin and we have seen the political consequences of that, particularly for Government. Howsoever, there is one fundamental that we must ensure in any decisions made by the incoming Government. I wish them well. They have a tough, difficult and onerous task and I wish the two Ministers of State who are here on the front bench, Deputies Ryan and Perry, well in their respective portfolios. There is good will towards the Government and there is a hope and expectation that we can turn the tide around in this economy. What we must do is ensure we are fair in the decisions we must take. When the universal social charge was brought in by the previous Administration, we made changes to it subsequently to ensure fairness. There is no Government, Minister for Finance, politician or person who wishes to have these difficult decisions to make. I suppose politicians by nature are optimistic and they also like to be bearers of good news. However, we will be measured, not perhaps in the immediate term but in the long term, by how we tackle the biggest economic decline that has happened, not alone in Ireland but in the world, since 1929. Returning to the issue of the motion, many people found the charge unjust. However, we had developed a taxation system with the health levy, the unemployment levy and the income levy. We had a huge amount of levies at different stages. What we must do now is ensure that we make reforms of the taxation system, which no doubt will arise, simple and not have too many tags on different taxation. Taxation, irrespective of its type, is really a exercise for the Government so that it can generate revenue to provide services, such as in health, social welfare and education, for its people. Those are the simple facts. No doubt we must raise funds. We have developed an excellent public service. We have developed an excellent service in health and education and, indeed, our welfare system, while it might be attacked on occasion,

896 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) is better than those of several economies that would be competing with us or comparative economies. While I welcome the decision to review it, Members have stated that they will abolish it. That is not being realistic because we must raise funds through the universal social charge and other taxation measures. All I ask of any review is that the system is as fair and as balanced as can be and protects the vulnerable. A society is measured by how it protects the most vulnerable and I sincerely hope that is an indication of it. I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Broughan, for the opportunity to speak on this matter.

Deputy John O’Mahony: I want to share time with Deputies Simon Harris, Anne Ferris, Derek Nolan, Regina Doherty and Colm Keaveney.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): Everybody has five minutes.

Deputy John O’Mahony: I am glad to contribute to this motion on the universal social charge. Looking back on the recent general election campaign, it was an issue that came up on every doorstep. Many of those who were lucky enough to still have a job showed us their payslips outlining the large chunks of their month or weekly salaries deducted by the universal social charge. As a member of Fine Gael, I would have liked to have been able to say to them that if they put us into Government they would not have to pay that the following month. Unfortu- nately, because of the state of the economy brought about by the mismanagement, wastage and incompetence of the previous Administration, we were not in such a position and, for once, people really respected the idea that we told them we would review it but we could not abolish it. We promised a review of it if and when in Government, and I am to glad that promise is kept in the programme for Government. No matter what the review, as the previous speaker stated, we will not be able to abolish it. However, the review is necessary because there is no doubt that low-paid workers at the middle-income level are suffering significantly. I have come across numerous examples, as I am sure everybody else here has, of families that are at their wit’s end to pay their household bills. It is unfair to penalise lower middle-income families who have worked hard all of their lives and have never been a burden to the State but now find themselves unable to meet their normal household outgoings, whether it be mortgage repayments or third level registration fees for their children because they are not entitled to grants, or in some cases, to put food on the table. Those on a higher income are better able to cope. It is the lower middle-income group that must be helped when this review takes place. I also accept the figures given by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, last evening when he outlined that someone on €100,000 a year pays 93 times the tax that someone on €16,000 pays. I suppose the point we would make is that they are well able to do that. Even though they are only on 6.25 times the income, it does not hide the fact that a person on €16,000 needs some further help in this review when it is carried out. We saw the previous Government giving a myriad of tax breaks to wealthy high-rollers in the past to such an extent that many of the high earners on €100,000 did not have to pay any tax at all. Fine Gael and the Labour Party had a good record of looking after the underprivi- leged and the less well off in the past and I have no doubt that when the review is complete, they will do so again. On this occasion, let the tax breaks and the concessions be for the lower paid and lower income families. Times are difficult and the country may be in receivership, but a worker on as little as €77 per week needs some hope and assurance. I have no doubt that the proposed review will give them that.

897 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy John O’Mahony.]

I was glad to see the Finance Act also introduced a high rate universal social charge applying to large bonuses paid to bankers at the head of banks bailed out by the Government over the past two years. The charge is applied to the bonus at 45%, leaving an aggregate charge of payments of 90% made up of the 45% from the universal social charge, income tax at 41% and PRSI at 4%. That is as it should be. I am glad that the terms of reference for the review of the social charge are being finalised by the Minister and that Sinn Féin and all other interested parties can contribute and make submissions.

Deputy Simon Harris: I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate on the future of the universal social charge and I thank Sinn Féin for dedicating its Private Members’ time to a discussion on this important issue, which no doubt is a cause of extreme concern to families the length and breadth of the country. The universal social charge in its current form is flawed. It is a blunt instrument which has caused sharp pain to families in Ireland. It was introduced in a rushed fashion by a panicked Government running out of both ideas and political capital. While I am sure Members on all sides of the House would relish the prospect of scrapping the universal social charge, those of us on the Government benches do not have the luxury of ducking difficult decisions. This country, as mentioned by Deputy O’Mahony, is in receivership for all intents and purposes. Our economic future is no longer in our sovereign hands. The errors, mistakes, misjudgments and miscalculations of the previous Government have ensured that economic sovereignty is something we must yet again aspire to as a nation. As a public representative, I like all Members know very well the problems posed by the USC in its current guise. I am aware of the difficulties facing hard-working families and I, along with my 75 other colleagues in the Fine Gael Party in this House, ran in an election with a very clear commitment in our manifesto on the issue. We did not promise the sun, the moon and the stars. We did not engage in auction politics or make tax pledges over which we could not stand. On page 69 of our manifesto we stated in clear, concise language our commitment on this issue and I would like to put that commitment on the record of the House. Our manifesto stated: “Fine Gael will carry out a review of the effect of the universal social charge on work incentives and employment participation in time for the 2012 budget.” That is what we committed to and it is on the back of that manifesto that I and my party colleagues received our mandate to serve in this House In our negotiated programme for Government with the Labour Party we have honoured that election commitment. Our commitment on this issue stems from the fact that work must pay and that people must be incentivised to work. It is unacceptable that some hard-working families working all the hours God sends find themselves struggling to make ends meet and feeling that they would be better cared for by the State if they did not work at all. We need to ensure that the USC is reformed so that it does not disincentivise people from working and from participating in employment opportunities. To do this correctly, we must carry out a thorough review of the impact of the USC and ensure that plans are in place to change it in the budget which will be presented to the House at the end of this year. I know the Minister and the Government are committed to doing this and I know that this process is open to all Members of the House, of all parties and none. I would encourage all to contribute their views and ideas. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, outlined in the House last night the problems with changing a taxation system mid-year and the difficulties that such changes would present for already struggling small and medium-sized businesses in Ireland. Creating such difficulties for small local employers is clearly not in the

898 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) interest of getting Ireland back to work. Furthermore, mid-year and rushed changes would create a series of potential new challenges and hardships for taxpayers, with Revenue having to recalculate tax liabilities and potentially seek additional money from hard-pressed taxpayers. While I have no doubt the intentions of the Private Members’ motion are sound and well- meaning, unfortunately the impact and the practicalities are not. It is also important to note that the re-introduction of health and income levies is not necessarily a positive development for the country and its taxpayers. It would require legislative changes to re-create and re- impose these levies. The amendment before the House tonight clearly recommits the Government to carrying out a much needed review of the USC, which as a result of such comprehensive consideration will ensure that a fairer USC is introduced in time for the next budget. The amendment is in line with the election manifesto of the Fine Gael Party, the programme for Government and the mandate I received from the people of Wicklow and east Carlow. I support and commend the amendment in the name of the Minister for Finance, which is realistic, responsible, economically solid and which commits to resolving the issue by the end of this year.

Deputy Anne Ferris: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of County Wicklow and east Carlow for electing me to the 31st Dáil and I promise to serve them to the best of my ability in the coming years. It is a great privilege for me to stand here in the Dáil Chamber representing the garden county and it is not one I take lightly. These are difficult times for the people of Ireland and as a Government we have a responsibility to ensure we fix our economy and rebuild our society, anchored on the core principles of equality and solidarity. The motion proposed by Sinn Féin, while welcome, is premature and I will join my colleagues from Fine Gael in supporting the counter motion proposed by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance. I remind the Members in Sinn Féin that the programme for Government, which was debated and voted on here just two weeks ago, included a promise that as part of our fiscal strategy we are committed to a review of the universal social charge. While I agree with some of the points contained in the Sinn Féin motion, it is a bit ironic to hear the Sinn Féin Deputies call on a daily basis for a reversal of the budget cutbacks when earlier this month their counterparts in Northern Ireland voted through one of the most austere budgets in recent history. As the Leader of the SDLP, Margaret Ritchie, said: “The position of the party can be summarised as follows: in the North, green Tory; in the South, different story.” The new national Government, only in office now a few weeks, has inherited a mess from the previous Fianna Fáil Administration and we are fighting on a number of fronts to reverse some of the terrible decisions it made. Among these, we are committed to changing the unequal and regressive system created by Fianna Fáil in its levying of the universal social charge, a scheme which actually reduced the amount paid by some of the highest earners, while attacking low paid workers. The Labour Party, in its manifesto, committed to a review of the universal social charge so as to identify the families that have been hardest hit and to reform the tax accordingly. It is clear that this tax was not thought through properly and came as something of a shock when people opened their pay packets in January. Indeed recent Exchequer figures have shown that the State’s finances are not as expected, despite the introduction of the universal social charge. In seeking to create a more equal and fair society, I am particularly proud of the commitment in the programme for Government under our proposals on a fiscal strategy for the implementation of a minimum effective tax rate of 30% for very high earners, the abolition of tax shelters which benefit high income tax earners and the abolition of property tax reliefs. I believe that among many proposals, the minimum effective tax rate of 30% is an important recognition that

899 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Anne Ferris.] those who can afford most must pay most. As Members are aware, a jobs budget will come up in May and it will be crucial in getting our people back to work and stemming the flow of our best and brightest going overseas. At every second door I knocked on in County Wicklow during the recent election campaign, I met someone who had directly experienced the effects of forced emigration, whether for a family member or friend. If we leave any legacy, it should be to ensure that we stop this loss which is tearing our communities apart. It is quite clear the previous Government pursued an agenda to increase income inequality in our society, something to which both myself and the Labour party are vehemently opposed. Part of this agenda was to lower the minimum wage, a policy which widened income inequality and attempted to drive down wages for other low paid workers. This Government is committed to reversing this attack on the ordinary working person. I, therefore, look forward to the review of the universal social charge, which I have no doubt will lead to major changes in the levy as part of an overall fiscal strategy that will be implemented by the Government. I believe the review will address many of the issues raised by this motion. I am glad that the current scheme applies a lower rate for those aged 70 and over and those on a full medical card. These concessions demonstrate that more can and must be done to make the universal social charge more fair. All the fiscal proposals I have mentioned, when combined, will give the Government the flexibility to address the inequalities that exist under the current universal social charge. I look forward to working with the Minister and other interested Deputies in reshaping this charge in the context of an overall strategy to create a more fair and progressive tax system, where those who can afford most contribute the most to funding the services our society needs.

Deputy Derek Nolan: As is customary when making a maiden speech, I thank the people of Galway West for their support in the general election and for the trust they have placed in me. In the course of my time in the 31st Dáil, I hope to live up to their expectations and to represent them with determination and honesty in any debates and business I conduct. The debate on the universal social charge, USC, and its impact is very welcome. During the course of the recent general election campaign, it was an issue that came up repeatedly on the canvass. There is scarcely a Deputy in this House who did not spend many an evening discussing it with their constituents. Given the worry and anxiety the USC is causing, it is right that we should discuss it at this early time in the life of the Dáil, and I thank the proposers for taking the initiative on it. The history to the USC is well known. Its introduction was facilitated by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in the last budget. It has been much discussed in the course of the debate, and the hardship it causes is continuing. The programme for Government commits to a review of the USC. I think this acknowledges that the USC is an important issue, and that it must be addressed, not merely examined again. I appreciate the difficulty of changing the taxation system mid-year. The State has become dependent on the revenue to be raised. There is a need for legislation and there is an administrative cost both to the State and to employers in implementing the change. The delay must not be used or abused as a method of desensitising people to the pain they are feeling, however, nor must it be used to create a breathing space for the administrative acceptance of the USC as it stands. On the contrary, it must be used to draft necessary changes and find sufficient resources to ease the burden on the lowest earners in society whom the USC is hurting so badly. The very name of the tax — the universal social charge — must be viewed with much cynicism. In the minds of many, it created the impression of a social insurance charge for which people would receive a tangible benefit in return, such as a guaranteed health benefit in the

900 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) form of health care access, dental services, unemployment benefit or some such other social benefit. However, it did not do that. It is a tax, pure and simple. To attach such a euphemistic and confusing label as a universal social charge was cynical and deliberately confusing. The context in which the tax was introduced also needs to be highlighted. I remember one evening canvassing on the doorsteps in Galway and meeting a lady who was working with the HSE and who was mortgaged to the hilt. She had already seen her pay cut and suffered tax increases, and it was in that context that a further universal social charge was introduced. The tax in itself cannot be viewed in isolation from the previous taxes and pay cuts that have been introduced. There is a need for a wider debate in this House on taxation. The idea of a social wage and a social charge, as is common in Germany and the Nordic states, is something we do not have in this country. The idea is not that we give up money to have it transferred to the State only to see it disappear, but rather that it is a give and take benefit which we receive and which is part of the State’s commitment that taxpayers and citizens will have their taxes used for their benefit. I worked in Frankfurt for two years and I will always remember getting my first pay cheque. It contained the tax payable, which was only a small amount of money, a solidarity charge to help pay for the rebuilding of the former East Germany, a public health insurance charge, a public nursing insurance charge, and a charge for the public pension. There was utter transparency and openness in what one was paying and why one was paying it. We need to rephrase our debate to explain how we want the taxation system to work in our country. We need the same buy-in in order that people appreciate that paying tax is part of a wider benefit to them. That kind of a debate will lead to greater tax compliance and enthusiasm for the taxation system. We need to work on that model with the same level of priority we have for other things. We must create a real social taxation system that is wider than the universal social charge, but not as much an imperative. I hope that this will happen over the course of the next few months.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): I congratulate you, Deputy, on your maiden speech. I also offer my congratulations to all our new Deputies who have spoken so well over recent weeks. I now call on Deputy Regina Doherty, who has five minutes.

Deputy Regina Doherty: Gabhaim buíochas le muintir na Mí as ucht an iontaoibh a chuir siad orm chun ionadaíocht a dhéanamh ar a son sa Dáil. Gabhaim buíochas freisin le mo theaghlach, mo chairde agus an lucht tacaíochta a chabhraigh liom. As this is my maiden speech, I thank the people of Meath East for placing their trust in me to represent them in the 31st Dáil. I also thank my family, friends and supporters who have assisted me greatly in achieving my ambition to do so. Tonight we debate the abolition of the universal social charge, as proposed by Sinn Féin. Last night Deputy Adams stated our economy is in crisis because of the political choices which were made by a deeply corrupt political elite operating within a flawed political system. While I largely agree with Deputy Adams, it is for that very reason that no rash decisions should be made about any changes to taxation policy by the current, reforming Government. Through our programme for Government, we are committed to reviewing the universal social charge, the terms of reference for which are currently being prepared and on which submissions have been sought from Members. Last night, Sinn Féin Deputies said they would favour the reintroduction of the former income and health levies, but only as an interim measure pending root and branch reform of taxation policy. In Fine Gael we do not introduce interim measures after only three weeks in power. Our plan is to do things correctly, fairly and efficiently the first time.

901 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Regina Doherty.]

Once the review board is established, I will propose recommendations to ease the impact of the universal social charge for those most adversely affected, as well as ensuring a rebalancing of the tax system in order that high earners and investors would contribute their fair share in a progressive tax system. In my view, an economic and social impact analysis should also be carried out in recognition of the burden the universal social charge represents, especially on the incomes of the lowest paid. Any revised tax policy should be cognisant of such a review. As a direct result of the reckless mismanagement of the economy by the previous Govern- ment, Ireland faces a profound economic crisis. The most important consequence of this weak- ness is job losses. The challenge that faces this Government is to develop a strategy that will allow for job growth. Job creation is central to any recovery and when we introduce our jobs budget, I believe we will address this issue head on. The creative measures laid out in our programme for Government will go a long way to putting us on the road to recovery. Examples include cutting the 13.5% rate of VAT to 12%, halving the lower 8.5% employer rate of PRSI, and providing additional resources for the national housing energy retrofitting plan. The challenge facing this Government is unlike any other. Our economy and our politics have been shattered, but our people’s spirit has not. We have seen that in the hope that people have expressed during recent weeks. It is that hope and trust which encourages new Members like me to look to the future with a sense of confidence. We have a sense of hope that with the right plans, the right people and with a unified sense of purpose, our country will recover. I support the amendment to the motion as proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes.

Deputy Colm Keaveney: A Chathaoirligh, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue. Tonight’s debate gives the House an opportunity to discuss the universal social charge in an informed and objective manner. I thank Sinn Féin for using its time to raise this important issue. I note that the primary objective is to achieve as much fairness as possible in respect of the effect of the universal social charge on people. A review of the universal social charge is on the cards at this stage. The programme for Government clearly states the establishment of a review mechanism is one of its primary objectives. I am delighted such an opportunity is to be made available. During the recent bruising and hard general election campaign we heard many difficult stories about the effect of the universal social charge on people in society. I do not doubt that this matter can be debated objectively by those who say their words tonight. If Sinn Féin’s motion is not passed, I trust that it will enthusiastically participate in the forthcoming review. Everyone agrees that there are some anomalies with the universal social charge. We have all heard stories about the difficulties that need to be reviewed in this context. Sinn Féin has called for the immediate abolition of the universal social charge and its replace- ment with income and health levies, but that is entirely impossible. It would require us to envelop ourselves in a legislative process. I do not think the public would forgive us if we had to undertake a precess of legislating again, which is what would be required to make the health levy practical at this juncture. The idea that we should change the tax system during the tax year is entirely impractical, as it would cause significant problems for the various Departments which rely on the revenue received from the universal social charge, the abolition of which would present significant problems for the Government. It would impose a significant cost on the administrative burden of government at this juncture. I will not claim that the universal social charge represents the most progressive means of raising revenue. I suppose our EU partners and the European Commission have stated it is a fair way of approaching the question

902 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) of providing for a fairer taxation system. I do not have much more to say on it, other than to emphasise that we have to move forward with it if we are to ensure the public finances will be sustainable in these difficult times. As a consequence of the mismanagement of the economy, there are no more opportunities to raise boom revenues. We have to broaden the tax base and steer the country out of the receivership in which it finds itself. Taxpayers deserve to be able to contribute to a progressive taxation system. In its current form, the universal social charge is not perfect. When the review takes place, we will come up with a formula that will lead to a fairer system. I accept that the universal social charge removes some of the poverty traps evident when the old levies were in place. However, we have to agree that we have an obligation to pay tax in order that important public services can be delivered in times of scarce resources. We have to start building a sustainable and robust system of taxation. Unfortunately, the universal social charge is part of the system as it stands. I accept that Sinn Féin has a well meaning objective. However, we are at risk of exposing the State to significant costs if we reintroduce the historical system. I am sure our friends in Sinn Féin will engage with the review enthusiastically. There are anomalies in the implications of the universal social charge. It is clear from the questions tabled to the Minister for Finance this week for written reply that there are significant problems with it. We have to adjust it and move on.

Deputy Joan Collins: I would like to share time with Deputies Stephen Donnelly, Clare Daly, Catherine Murphy, Mattie McGrath, Thomas Pringle, Mick Wallace and Richard Boyd Barrett.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Joan Collins: When the Government which consisted of Deputies from Fianna Fáil, the Green Party, the Progressive Democrats, the Fianna Fáil gene pool and Deputy Lowry introduced this tax, it should have been honest with people and called it the “universal anti- social charge”. Like many of those present, I canvassed at doorsteps during the recent general election campaign and this was one of the main issues about which the people of Dublin South- Central were boiling mad. The universal social charge must be one of the most hated measures to have been introduced by any Government. The people of my constituency have no problem paying their taxes — they are prepared to do so — but they think everybody else should be doing likewise. It is incredible that the wealthy pay taxes in America, the most capitalist country in the world, whereas the wealthy in this country are protected by Government policies. I have to say that although I support the call for the abolition of this charge, I find nothing progressive in the health and income levies. I would be absolutely opposed to their reintroduction, particularly as far as those on low and moderate incomes are concerned. We have choices to make when we seek alternatives to the universal anti-social charge and the cuts in welfare payments. I suggest we choose to make the very wealthy pay for the crisis caused by their greed. This could be done by introducing a wealth tax. Such a tax would raise €1 billion at a rate of 1%. The tax exile status of wealthy individuals is a scandalous joke that should be brought to an end. It is an insult that someone like Denis O’Brien who became ridiculously wealthy as a result of a contract awarded by the State in dubious circumstances — we discussed that matter earlier — does not pay a red cent towards the health service or our children’s education. He has no problem with paying 50% of the inflated salary of a football manager as long as he is not asked to contribute to the society from which his massive wealth derives. We could have a third, higher tax rate that would apply to individual incomes of more than €100,000. We could cap all public service and public sector salaries at €100,000 a year. When the question of making the wealthy pay is raised, the Establishment, those involved in politics

903 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Joan Collins.] and the business community, argue that it cannot be done. They say it would cost jobs and prevent talent from being attracted. In other words, they say “hands off the wealthy”. They think it is okay to tax people on very low incomes as long as the wealthy are not touched. They are concerned about their friends — the people with whom they play golf, go for exclusive dinners and share the Galway tent. The political establishment can continue to defend the indefensible, but I am not here to represent the rich. With my colleagues in the United Left Alliance, I am here to fight for the interests of working people. We will fight for the reversal of every cut and tax increase that affects people on low and moderate incomes.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: The introduction of the universal social charge was a bizarre measure. I am encouraged that Sinn Féin has tabled this motion and that the Government has agreed to review the charge. Having listened to the debate, there seems to be broad consensus in the House that such a review needs to happen. I accept that we need to broaden the tax base, not because we want lower income workers and families to pay more but because we all have to contribute if we are to get the public finances under control and not drown in the tsunami of debt we face. However, this is not the way to do that. It does not reflect the nature of this Parliament or society. The universal social charge is a regressive tax. By my calculations, the switch from the health and income levies to the charge caused the amount of tax paid by someone earning €14,000 to increase by 1.4%. By contrast, I calculate that the same switch caused the amount of tax paid by someone earning €250,000 to decrease by the same amount, 1.4%. That is why it is a bizarre and regressive tax that runs contrary to our social values and the stated aims of many Members of the House. The universal social charge penalises self-employed persons. It provides that self-employed persons who earn more than €100,000 must pay an additional 3% by comparison with those who are employed. It could be argued that those who earn more than €100,000 can well afford to pay an additional 3% — that may well be the case — but they should not be penalised in a way that people who are employed are not. It could be argued that persons who are self- employed face additional stresses and take additional risks. The penalisation of such individuals seems bizarre. The motion has two advantages over the Government amendment. First, it explicitly recognises the regressive nature of the universal social charge, something which the proposed amendment fails to do. Second, it proposes immediate measures to help the most vulnerable, namely, reversing the universal social charge and introducing a health and income levy which, although imperfect, represents progress. The claims by various contributors that the levy would be administratively complex, that Departments would find it difficult to adjust their accounts or that Fine Gael gets things right first time and therefore does not take helpful interim steps are disingenuous and unworthy. I certainly would not tell the most vulnerable people in our society that it is too difficult or that we want to get it right before we help them. For these reasons, I will be voting to support the motion.

Deputy Clare Daly: It was sickening to hear Government Deputies crying ochón about the hardships faced by ordinary people who are the victims of this charge while condemning them to a review which will be completed at some point in the future. Everybody knows the universal social charge was the last Government’s great Robin Hood in reverse tax. It took money from the poor in order to give it to those at the top. When the last budget was passed, those on annual incomes of €500,000 gained thousands of euro, whereas the lowest paid workers were forced to pay exorbitant proportions of their incomes. The charge is an absolute disgrace and it does not even make sense because those earning the lowest incomes spend the largest proportion of their money, thereby making a positive impact on the economy. The only justifi-

904 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) cation given for the charge is that we need the money and must share the burden. It is like the response the Taoiseach gave earlier today in regard to the bin men of south Dublin who have to take a €200 hit on their weekly wages so that we all share the pain. The only sharing of pain is by ordinary and middle income earners while those at the top make the gain. As Deputy Joan Collins stated, this is about choices. The universal social charge is not necessary and the Government did not need to await the outcome of a review to choose to reduce tax breaks to the EU average, thereby saving the State €5 billion in tax foregone. That is much more than what is generated by the universal social charge. It could have reformed the tax exile legislation that allows citizens like Denis O’Brien to escape taxes. It could have introduced PRSI charges or health and income contribution levies on capital allowances. I am surprised Sinn Féin is not targeting that sector instead of asking workers to pay more taxes. These measures could have raised far more than the universal social charge. The Government decided in advance of a review to reduce VAT and employer PRSI, which is already one of the lowest in Europe, in order to benefit employers. However, it has chosen to ignore proposals that could alleviate the enormous hardships that workers are experiencing. It is not good enough; the charge should be abolished straight away.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: One of the main questions I was asked on doorsteps during the general election was what exactly this charge is for. While most people do not like paying taxes, they accept tax has to be collected for the day-to-day running of the State and to fund health, education and local authority services. However, they expect their taxes to be used in a way that achieves value for money. Most people are also broadly aware of the purpose of pay related social insurance, although that is a diminishing benefit in terms of dental treatment and other supports. They see the universal social charge as a penalty for wrongdoing that is being applied to the wrong people. Not only do they see it as deeply unfair but they are aware that individuals on large incomes gain from the measure as opposed to those on low and moderate incomes. One individual pointed out to me that while the first €4,000 is exempt, anyone who earns even a marginal sum above that level will incur a total liability. How can that be seen to be fair? This charge was imposed in budget 2010 but its full impact was only felt when it was withdrawn from wages and salaries in January 2011. It caused frustration and hurt among ordinary families who were struggling to pay their mortgages and juggling competing demands such as buying food or heating their houses. Those who are also struggling to keep their children in college wonder what it is all about when they see their offspring emigrating. If we are to impose taxes, they should be fair. As a flat tax, this charge disproportionately affects those on low to middle incomes. This is not a charge; it is a deeply unfair tax. The absence of consequences for those who have caused the problem, the golden handshakes that were given to many of those who departed important positions in disgrace and the fact that nobody has been sent to jail are further reasons for the resistance to this tax. People believe the rule is that tax is only for little people. They want a fair tax system and they will pay their share but this is an unfair and regressive tax.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I concur with previous speakers that the universal social charge is a tax. It was presented as a way of simplifying the tax system by consolidating health income levies. We had no problem with it when it was first announced because there is nothing wrong with the concept of a universal social charge in itself. The problem, however, is that the rates at which it is charged affect low and middle income earners who are already struggling on the

905 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Mattie McGrath.] breadline or below it. This flat tax targets people earning as little as €77 per week at the same rate as those on annual incomes of €100,000. That is unfair by any standards. Little notice was taken of the charge until its impact was felt in people’s wage packages. We have seen the devastation in our economy ever since in terms of shops and businesses which are not doing transactions. It will have a massive impact on next year’s tax returns. I recently spoke with a Revenue official who acknowledged that many small businesses are unable to pay taxes or wages, which has the result of forcing staff onto the dole queues. This was a short- sighted decision by the mandarins in the Department of Finance. I am glad the former Minister for Finance is in the Chamber because I had numerous exchanges with him on the issue. I thank him for changing the measures that affected medical card holders but this charge is unfair and will have the wrong impact. The budget introduced a cut to the minimum wage but we were unable to introduce a maximum wage. I lobbied the then Minister on that measure but, while he announced it in his budget speech, he conveniently forgot about it when it came to the Finance Act. The high salaries paid across the public sector and to the CEOs of semi-State companies are unjust and inequitable. The charge must be reversed because it will have an adverse effect on the Exchequer. People will have insufficient money to buy basic necessities and businesses will close or be unable to pay their tax returns.

Deputy Thomas Pringle: It is widely accepted in civil society that the USC is an unequal and regressive tax targeted at low- and middle-income earners. The Labour Party recognised this when it called for a review of the tax in the past. To see a tax introduced that disproportionately affects workers on low and middle incomes and then, when in Government, to support its continued collection is an affront to the hard-pressed workers in our society. A worker earning €25,000 per year is paying €1,069 in the USC tax, which represents an increase of €569 per year compared to the old health levy system. This regressive tax has knocked the wind out of people who are already struggling and finding it more and more difficult to survive this recession. It is even more galling for these workers when they see the billions that have been — and will be over the coming days — poured into the zombie banks in our State. The Government does not seem to realise that low- and middle-income earners spend pro- portionately more of their income in the real economy, driving demand for goods and services that in turn generates more tax income. It is no surprise that the Exchequer returns from February of this year show a VAT shortfall of €129 million. This can be directly related to the impact of the USC. The effect will be compounded in the year ahead as people on these income levels see their spending power curtailed further. The USC tax will have the compounding effect of further reducing demand in the economy, and the vicious circle will continue unabated. The programme for Government states that the USC is to be reviewed. The review needs to bring real change to this unjust tax. However, the Labour Party will probably achieve only a token adjustment from its senior Government colleagues, which will be dressed up as a victory, while low-income workers continue to suffer. For these reasons, I will support the motion as put tonight.

Deputy Mick Wallace: Most speakers have more or less agreed that the USC is very unfair. I have not heard many people say it is a fair system. It is good that the Government has decided to review it, but I hope “review” means “reverse”. I note that on page 2 of the programme for

906 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

Government it is stated: “[B]oth our parties are committed to protecting the vulnerable and to burden-sharing on an equitable basis.” It would be nice if it were true, because it would be a noble aim. If there is any truth in that statement, the Government will reverse this tax rather than tinkering around with it. It is hitting the less well off, as everybody has said, more than the well off. I cannot remember a time when I heard so many people complaining about their take-home pay. It has come as such a shock to people. I run a few restaurants in the city centre. Our turnover is down and we have had to lay off a couple of people since Christmas. People cannot believe how little money they have to pay their debts. It does not make sense any more. We are sucking the living daylights out of the economy, and we cannot possibly expect it to recover on these terms.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Tommy Broughan): Next is Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, who has three minutes.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Can I have slightly longer because Deputy Wallace took less time than expected?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Tommy Broughan): Well, we will be flexible.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Thank you, Chairman. One of the Government spokespersons described the USC as an anomaly and said it was not perfect. That is an unbelievable understatement in view of the reality of the USC. I hope it is not, but I fear it is, an indication of a lack of intention on the part of the Government to reverse the charge, perhaps watering it down or diluting it instead. The USC is not an anomaly; it is not simply imperfect. It is a disgusting attack on low- and middle-income families carried out by a now thankfully discredited Government, on whom ordinary people rightly took their revenge in the recent election. This attack is now threatening to put tens of thousands of ordinary working people under — people who are unable to pay their bills or meet their mortgage repayments and who are really struggling. They are in no way responsible for the economic crisis, but they are being asked to pay for it. As well as being an anti-social charge, it is a bankers’ tax. It was the decision of the last Government to cold-bloodedly transfer responsibility for the banking crisis created by it and its banker and speculator friends on to the backs of working people. That was a choice it made, as a number of other people have said. Some of the facts about the USC are truly shocking. The UNITE trade union, using the Deloitte tax calculator, unearthed the fact that those who earn more than €1 million per year will be €24,000 better off as a result of this charge, while ordinary working families will lose hundreds. The ESRI estimates that there will be no wage growth in the economy 8o’clock next year, but non-wage income — rents, dividends, interest and self-employment — will grow by 29%. The shocking fact revealed in the Sunday Independent rich list was that the richest few hundred people in this country are €6.7 billion richer this year than they were last year. We have taken from the poor to protect the rich. That is what the last Government did and, sadly, this Government is beginning to look very lukewarm about reversing it. I have proposals for the Government, because I do not intend only to be critical. If it is serious in its sentiments of concern about the injustice of the USC, not to mention its economic counter-productiveness in sucking money from the pockets of people who could spend it, I suggest that it completely scrap the charge and institute a 1% — I would like to see 5%, but I

907 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett.] will settle for 1% — wealth tax on the assets of people who have assets of more than €1 million. That would yield, even based on the most conservative estimates, €1.2 billion, which is nearly three times what the USC has earned for the State. Could we have a tax of just 1% on the wealthiest people instead of the USC? If the Government is serious, it will consider that. I would like to see higher wealth taxes to help reverse all the other cuts, but I ask it to commit just to that simple thing — a 1% tax on the richest people to remove the injustice of the USC. That is the sort of commitment the Government should give tonight.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Tommy Broughan): Earlier in the debate, Deputy Brian Lenihan indicated that he wished to speak but was inadvertently missed. With the agreement of the House, I will ask Deputy Lenihan to take a few minutes to make his contribution to the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Fianna Fáil does not intend to vote on this motion. We do not agree with the economic analysis of the Sinn Féin approach and we are not convinced that the Government review will establish many changes with regard to the USC. However, we welcome the review, and the motion, as an opportunity to discuss the issue. The review is an opportunity, in the normal course of things, for the Government to consider this matter. Governments consider all tax issues coming up to the budget, so there is nothing unusual about having a review that will end with the budget next year. It is impractical to have a change mid-year. I do not accept many of the imputations and comments that have been made in the debate, and I especially resent the imputation that there is some connection between the USC and the corruption of office-holders, as was suggested by Deputy Adams, or the more recent comment I heard a few moments ago that I was influenced in the performance of my duties by any person of substance or wealth in the community. I accept new Deputies have canvassed and heard the views of many voters on the universal social charge. I heard them loud and clear too. It must be remembered, however, that the OECD in a study of the tax systems of 24 member states established Ireland has one of the most progressive. It examined income distribution and poverty across 24 member states according to the share of taxes paid by the super-rich and their share of market income. Figures showed the richest 10% of Ireland’s population paid 39.1% of the total income tax bill. Ireland ranks third behind only two other states where the richest 10% pay more than 40% of their states’ tax bill. On average across all 24 countries surveyed, the richest 10% of the population pay 31.6% of the tax bill. The study also considered the percentage of overall income earned by those in the wealthiest 10% of the population with an OECD average of 28% emerging. The progressivity of Ireland’s tax system is very advanced when compared internationally. This is, however, at variance with the rhetoric and the ideological guff we have had to listen to from some quarters in this House. The programme for national recovery makes the real position clear. We have eroded the income tax base to an unsustainable level which must be rectified. It can only be rectified by the abolition of tax shelters, as well as the broadening of the tax base. After 2000, the entry point in income tax increased from €7,238 to €18,300. Since the introduction of individualisation, tax bands have widened by 105% for a single person and married two earners. Credits have increased by 92% since their introduction in 2001. These increases in tax exemptions and immunity from taxation were introduced over time. Accord- ingly, in 2004, 34% of tax units were exempt from paying income tax. Last year, that percentage had increased to 45%. When I hear the constant referral in this House to ordinary people, I

908 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) recall the 55% of ordinary people who pay tax. Is it Sinn Féin policy that the other 45% should pay no tax at all? I am sure there will be some guffaws but I do consider myself a social democrat and believe the payment of taxation is fundamental to the ordering of a just society. So too is the progressive payment of taxation which does not entail a large group should pay no tax at all. That is the proposition that Sinn Féin, with its ideologically driven slogans, is trying to push.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Everyone pays tax. Take VAT for example.

Deputy Seán Crowe: There are many poor people paying taxes.

Deputy Dessie Ellis: Does that mean applying a charge on incomes of €4,000?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: When he was Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan never took ability to pay the charge into account.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): No interruptions, please.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: We all have to contribute according to our means. No one can be left in a position in which they contribute nothing at all. The OECD study is very clear. Ireland has one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world. The thinking behind the universal social charge was to consolidate the income levy with the health charge and, in time, with PRSI. This would have ensured there were no poverty traps and income distortions which existed with a system of 12 different levies. I wish the Government well in its review of the universal social charge. There are many aspects of it that can be reviewed, as with all taxation. However, as the taxing assembly, we cannot lose sight of the core issue that the State must have a viable tax base. Political parties that call for more expenditure while objecting to expenditure reductions and stating there should be exemptions from income tax for a large section of the population are not advancing a credible economic policy.

Deputy Peter Mathews: Listening to this debate both yesterday and this evening, it is very obvious there is an awakening sense of fairness again, a good sign. For some time our society was operating in a fog which led to disaster and catastrophe. The people we would expect to be leaders in society, not just politicians but professionals, actually helped create that fog. It is surprising the talented and skilled in the professions do not seem to have made any serious contribution, except for their clients, to the public debate towards getting back to a sense of fairness in the contributions that must be made for the services provided by the State to its people. It is also breathtaking that a group of 17 people recently had the nerve to suggest in their blueprint for Ireland’s recovery that they would be able to throw light on a better way of running this country and highlight a path to recovery.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: One of them was Fine Gael’s director of elections.

Deputy Peter Mathews: Half of this group do not even reside in the country for taxation purposes. Deputy Lenihan should recall I am a Member of this House in order to represent the thoughts and feelings of my constituents. I am certain what I have to say in this debate reflects what I, along with many other Deputies, heard on the doorsteps during the election.

909 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Peter Mathews.]

It is important a review of the universal social charge is carried out. The term “review” often gets mixed up with television and radio reviews when it should be about looking again at how the tax system is structured. It is silly and absurd that people on €14,000 a year are being hit with unsustainable tax rates. In the spirit exhorted by the Taoiseach, we must all contribute to a speedy, effective and efficient review. We must all help each other with a sense of collegiality, co-operation and encouragement of one another.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I followed last night’s debate in the House with interest and want to recap on four of the points made on both sides. First, there will be a review of the universal social charge. It is a commitment in the programme for Government and I have already invited submissions in this House from Sinn Féin and any other interested parties or Members. Second, the universal social charge is progressive. When all charges on income are taken together we have a highly progressive taxation system. Ireland has one of the most progressive taxation systems in the entire OECD. Third, the universal social charge removes most of the poverty traps inherent in the old, jerry-built, system of the income levy and the health levy with their different bases, exemptions, rates and thresholds. Finally, we must have a sustainable, robust taxation system and the universal social charge is part of that system.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Is the Minister reading Deputy Lenihan’s speech?

Deputy Michael Noonan: Sinn Féin’s charge of regressivity of the universal social charge was dealt with soundly last night. The comparison made by Sinn Féin of the individual on €16,016 and €100,000 as an example of regressivity is wrong. An individual earning €16,016 in 2011 will be expected to pay €440 in taxes over the entire year. An individual earning €100,000 in 2011 will be expected to pay €40,867 in taxes and charges. This means that the individual on €100,000 earns six and a quarter times the income of an individual on €16,016, but pays 93 times the tax. It is hard to argue that is regressive; that is one of the more progressive taxes one will find. Some €440 is paid on the lower income, while €40,867 is paid on the higher income. This makes the point. Many would argue that the universal social charge is a just tax because everybody pays it. There is no shelter from it and the wealthy cannot use tax avoidance schemes to evade the charge. Passive investors cannot reduce their liability through capital allowances. There are no exemptions for investments from forestry, mining, patent royalties or artistic pursuits. Everyone pays this charge. For a party advocating the removal of tax breaks that allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of tax, this seems to be an instrument in which Sinn Féin might see some merit. It removes all possibility of tax avoidance. In condemning the universal social charge, Sinn Féin finds itself unlikely bedfellows with tax accountants, tax planners——

Deputy Seán Crowe: And the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Deputy Michael Noonan: ——and their wealthy clients, who, seeing no way of avoiding the universal social charge, also deem it an unfair and draconian tax. The media and the financial papers show that the strongest opponents of the universal social charge are the categories of

910 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed) professionals I refer to. The proposals of Sinn Féin are not well thought out. They are responding to the anger felt by people on whom this tax was imposed for the first time. There is unfairness in the tax and it should be subject to review. In seeking to amend it, however, Sinn Féin has taken too general a view of the matter. Sinn Féin proposes to abolish the universal social charge three months into the year. It proposes to dust down and re-introduce two levies with three quarters of the tax year remaining. Sinn Féin will then introduce a third rate of income tax on incomes over €100,000 to make up some of the loss of the yield from the abolition of the universal social charge. All of this is being done three months into the year and there seems to have been no consideration of the upheaval this would cause, not to mention the cost. It would not just be Revenue and employers that would bear this extra burden; every income earner in the country would have to get a second tax certificate for the year because the tax year would have to be split in two and the tax credits apportioned pro rata. We would be awash with underpayments and overpayments, assessments and reviews, head scratching and hand wringing. Income tax is often decried as being overly complex but if this proposal was adopted, no one would be sure of tax liability for the remainder of the year. According to Deputy Doherty, Sinn Féin has done all the good work on this but the proposal is to abolish the income levy or the health levy or both without any mention of how the shortfall of €3.6 billion would be collected.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We sent the figures in before the budget. It is all on the Minister, Deputy Noonan’s desk.

Deputy Michael Noonan: It is the old story. We know precisely what Sinn Féin is against but we never know what that party is for.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: The Minister should not replicate the mistakes of his predecessors.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I am sorry, we know Sinn Féin is in favour of a united Ireland but, apart from that, we do not know what Sinn Féin is in favour of.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: Equality and fairness.

Deputy Michael Noonan: Let me close by confirming that the universal social charge will be reviewed. I encourage all interested parties to make submissions to the Department of Finance. These will be considered in the context of the next budget.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): I understand Deputies Seán Crowe, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn are sharing the final 15 minutes.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Last night I sat through the Private Members’ debate from start to finish. At one stage, it was like waking up after a nightmare and I had to try to figure out whether the nightmare was real. I had one of those moments when the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, quoted the Democratic Programme. It was one of the most bizarre inci- dents I have ever witnessed in this House. Given the way he was quoting it, I do not think he had read the programme. It made clear that the Government is bound to prioritise the Irish people and their interests. It refers to the sovereignty of the Irish people, which the previous Government, with the support of this Government, was prepared to barter. It got a bad deal because the barter did not seem to work.

911 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.]

The Democratic Programme also speaks, first and foremost, of ensuring our people’s needs are met and to employ all of the country’s resources to that end. That includes natural resources. This and the previous Government were more than willing to hand over Ireland’s natural resources. The gas reserves were given to Shell and our public infrastructure, built by Irish taxpayers’ money, was given to private interests. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, spoke of the importance of Ireland standing on its own and paying its way but bailing out failed gamblers and foreign banks as his Government is willing to do will make that impossible. There would be no need for the universal social charge if this or the previous Government had lived up to the spirit of the 1st Dáil and made a political choice to tax the wealthy and to harness our natural resources for the good of the people. The choice was made to squander what is rightfully ours. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, also accused my party of pursuing an austerity agenda in the Six Counties. This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and the reality of British rule. That is the other part of the nightmare I had — the Minister of State lecturing Sinn Féin on the reality of the North. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, and his party were happy to facilitate what happened in the North and the occupation of our Six Counties for many years, as they are happy to facilitate the visit of the commander-in-chief of the British Army to our shores. This will take place not for an hour or so but for four full days. Shame on the Minister of State for that. The gross misrepresentation of the reality of British rule is that the key fiscal powers necessary to pursue our alternative plan for recovery have not been devolved to the Assembly. If the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, is that concerned about the Assembly and the Six Counties, he will join us in our effort to end British rule in Ireland forthwith. Deputy Paschal Donohoe followed as part of that nightmare when he tried to poke a hole in our proposals, claiming initially there was a black hole in our figures. Obviously he had not bothered to read the motion. He continued with his speech and it became clear that our figures stood up to any test. Our proposal for a new rate of 48% on individual income in excess of €100,000 would raise the same amount of additional revenue raised by the introduction of the universal social charge. Hence, it would compensate for its abolition. Under our proposals, the pre-existing health and income levies would apply briefly until a more radical reform of our tax system made it truly progressive and fair when it was completed.

Deputy Seán Crowe: The universal social charge did come up on every doorstep. People were angry. We are articulating that anger tonight because it is wrong. People believed it was wrong. That has not changed. People still believe the new taxation is wrong because they were not given a choice. Every day they see fraudsters, gamblers, speculators and bankers being bailed out and they are still in the same situation. Everyone in the Chamber knocked on doors. Did they promise more of the same? Not even Fianna Fáil promised more of the same. It said it would approach things differently. Everyone else in the Chamber said they were going to do things differently. I have not seen that happen yet. Neither has anyone else. People in this city who were poor are still poor. That is the reality. They are being told by the Government tonight that a review is on the way. People hanging off a financial cliff are being asked to hold on because a review is coming down the line. Children in this city are going to bed hungry but they are being told to hang on in there because a review is on the way. What is being said is that the Government knows that some of these things are a bit unfair but that it is going to change them.

912 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

What also came up on the doorsteps is that people believe politicians live in a parallel universe. From listening to some of the debate I say they are correct. We do live in a parallel universe. We are on a different salary. That is for sure. We are not being affected in the same way as ordinary people. That is what is wrong. We do not have a clue what is happening in many people’s homes in terms of the universal social charge. It is all very well to talk about reviews when one has a lot of money in one’s pocket or one’s children are not going hungry. That is what has happened. We have sentenced people to debt. This motion is about commuting that debt. That is what we are asking people to do. There are choices and alternatives which we put forward. It is not about bailing out bankers. It is about bailing out people who work for a living. The universal social charge is creating conditions whereby we are creating more and more working poor. That is what is happening right across this city and across the country. That is why people are angry. That is why I am angry. This is not my maiden speech but it is the first time I have raised my voice in this Chamber in a long time. What the Government proposes to continue with — review or no review — is more of the same. What the Government is talking about doing is bailing out crooks, fraudsters, speculators and gamblers, but no one is bailing out ordinary working people. That is what is wrong. We need to bring about change. Unguaranteed bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank were given €750 million by this State. That is a scandal. The Government did not have to do it, yet we introduce a new tax which is supposed to be burden sharing. Burden sharing my arse.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: It is quite a remarkable experience for people tonight watching the debate and those following it at home to see the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who oversaw the handing of our economic sovereignty over to others——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: No.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: ——and who oversaw the bankruptcy of this State share the same ideological analysis and view as the likes of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan — who practically read the same speech Deputy Brian Hayes read last night — and Deputy Paschal Donohoe, tell us that in fact we live in one of the most progressive states in the world which is terribly fair. They should tell that to the people who have watched our State being bankrupt to pay off the debts of reckless millionaires and billionaires not just in this country but across Europe. Those in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil would tell us that we live in a great, progressive, advanced State that is terribly fair altogether. The parties might as well just get it over with, join together and form one party. They should just get it over with once and for all. I am shocked to see Labour Deputies stand by quietly and listen to that type of right wing ideology and say nothing.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: There is going to be a review.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: There have been very few Labour Deputies present until now for the debate. They will all come scurrying in for the vote in a few minutes. They will all be in the Chamber filling their seats but they have not been present for the debate on one of the biggest issues for the communities they represent. When they knocked on doors and met public servants, the middle classes, the lower middle classes, the working classes and those people who have been affected, they did not tell them that their party would work with Fine Gael and oversee the maintenance of this policy. I do not know if members of the Labour

913 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

[Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.] Party took time to read the ideological view contained in the speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, repeated by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, tonight.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: Did Deputy Mac Lochlainn listen to the Labour Party contributions?

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Their view is very clear. They have defended the universal social charge as if they were the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan. One would think they had introduced the universal social charge themselves such was their ideological support for this totally unjust tax which puts an additional burden on ordinary working people and lets off the very wealthy. The Government quoted figures from the OECD and talked about 10% of people paying 39.1% of taxes. How much wealth does that 10% own in this State? This is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. That is a reality.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The OECD does not agree.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: That is where the Government is coming from. What was really interesting last night was watching the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, talk about the Six Counties. Apparently, there were bonfires burning in south Armagh, Tyrone, west Belfast and other parts of Belfast to celebrate the fact that Fine Gael at last has an interest in the people of the Six Counties. Where were they all the years when we needed them? They were imprisoning people and keeping down those who tried to do something for the people of the Six Counties. The reality, if the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, took time to educate himself, is that the people of the Six Counties are fighting to gain fiscal powers to have control over their own budgets so they can make real decisions for their communities. They are on that journey. What did we do in this State, where we had fiscal powers? We gave them away to the EU and IMF. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, should have a wee bit of humility when he is backing up the view of the former Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who gave our sovereignty away.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Northern Ireland would have been in the IMF since 1922.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: That was one of the saddest days in the history of this State, a devastating day for our people. I will not go over the details of the universal social charge again. Members know the realities in terms of its impact on the ground. Fine Gael has now put its right-wing clothing on. I single out Deputy Peter Matthews. His comments were thoughtful and represent an element within Fine Gael that clearly does not drift towards the right wing when it gets the chance. Is the Labour Party seriously going to serve for five years with people who articulate the views in the speech made last night by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes? Is that what it will do to its values and where it comes from?. The Labour Party knows whom it represents. It represents the same people that Sinn Féin and the Independent Deputies represent. Are its members going to betray their interests for right-wing ideology yet again, because the people voted with hope in their hearts that those days of the elites, tents, Moriarty and Mahon tribunals were over, that the wealthy elites would not control and that we would have fair, progressive taxation in this State? We do not have it at this point. The Ministers, Deputies Joan Burton and Róisín Shortall, said the USC was squeezing the poor, that it was a blatant and unjustifiable attack on the poor. That is what they said. That is how strongly they felt about this tax. The one or two Ministers who were present last night listened to the Minister of State,

914 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

Deputy Brian Hayes, talk about this being a fair, progressive State and they never said a word. They spoke about working in co-operation.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Thomas P. Broughan): The Deputy has one minute left.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Deputy Broughan is one of the people on the left of the Labour Party and in his heart it must be hurting him to witness this behaviour. Let us just deal with the facts. The Government speaks of alternatives. My alternative, which the Labour Party once supported, is to introduce a new rate of taxation of 48%. This would raise exactly the same additional income as the universal social charge. That is the choice to be made and it is a question of choices. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to a 1% tax on the assets of the very wealthy. It is estimated by very progressive economists that this would raise over €1 billion. These are the choices that exist. The Labour Party should examine its soul and listen to the people it represents. If it is to stand by and allow Fine Gael, whose members, with the exception of a few notable people, espouse a right-wing ideology, to get away with its agenda over the course of the next five years, it will have committed as big a betrayal of the people it represents as Fianna Fáil.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 106; Níl, 27.

Tá

Bannon, James. Flanagan, Charles. Barry, Tom. Flanagan, Terence. Breen, Pat. Gilmore, Eamon. Broughan, Thomas P. Griffin, Brendan. Bruton, Richard. Hannigan, Dominic. Burton, Joan. Harrington, Noel. Buttimer, Jerry. Harris, Simon. Byrne, Eric. Hayes, Tom. Cannon, Ciarán. Heydon, Martin. Carey, Joe. Hogan, Phil. Coffey, Paudie. Howlin, Brendan. Collins, Áine. Humphreys, Heather. Conaghan, Michael. Humphreys, Kevin. Conlan, Seán. Keating, Derek. Connaughton, Paul J. Keaveney, Colm. Conway, Ciara. Kehoe, Paul. Coonan, Noel. Kelly, Alan. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Kenny, Enda. Costello, Joe. Kenny, Seán. Coveney, Simon. Kyne, Seán. Creed, Michael. Lawlor, Anthony. Creighton, Lucinda. Lynch, Ciarán. Daly, Jim. Lynch, Kathleen. Deasy, John. Lyons, John. Deenihan, Jimmy. Maloney, Eamonn. Deering, Pat. Mathews, Peter. Doherty, Regina. McCarthy, Michael. Donohoe, Paschal. McEntee, Shane. Dowds, Robert. McFadden, Nicky. Doyle, Andrew. McGinley, Dinny. Durkan, Bernard J. McHugh, Joe. English, Damien. McLoughlin, Tony. Farrell, Alan. McNamara, Michael. Feighan, Frank. Mitchell, Olivia. Ferris, Anne. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Mulherin, Michelle. 915 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

Tá—continued

Murphy, Dara. Phelan, John Paul. Murphy, Eoghan. Quinn, Ruairí. Nash, Gerald. Rabbitte, Pat. Naughten, Denis. Reilly, James. Neville, Dan. Ring, Michael. Nolan, Derek. Shatter, Alan. Sherlock, Sean. Noonan, Michael. Shortall, Róisín. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Spring, Arthur. O’Donnell, Kieran. Stagg, Emmet. O’Donovan, Patrick. Stanton, David. O’Dowd, Fergus. Timmins, Billy. O’Mahony, John. Tuffy, Joanna. O’Reilly, Joe. Twomey, Liam. O’Sullivan, Jan. Wall, Jack. Penrose, Willie. Walsh, Brian. Perry, John. White, Alex. Phelan, Ann.

Níl

Adams, Gerry. McDonald, Mary Lou. Boyd Barrett, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Collins, Joan. McGrath, Mattie. Colreavy, Michael. McLellan, Sandra. Crowe, Seán. Murphy, Catherine. Daly, Clare. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Doherty, Pearse. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Donnelly, Stephen. O’Brien, Jonathan. Ellis, Dessie. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Ferris, Martin. Pringle, Thomas. Fleming, Tom. Stanley, Brian. Healy, Seamus. Tóibín, Peadar. Higgins, Joe. Wallace, Mick. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 106; Níl, 27.

Tá

Bannon, James. Conway, Ciara. Barry, Tom. Coonan, Noel. Breen, Pat. Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella. Broughan, Thomas P. Costello, Joe. Bruton, Richard. Coveney, Simon. Burton, Joan. Creed, Michael. Buttimer, Jerry. Creighton, Lucinda. Byrne, Eric. Daly, Jim. Cannon, Ciarán. Deasy, John. Carey, Joe. Deenihan, Jimmy. Coffey, Paudie. Deering, Pat. Collins, Áine. Doherty, Regina. Conaghan, Michael. Donohoe, Paschal. Conlan, Seán. Dowds, Robert. Connaughton, Paul J. Doyle, Andrew.

916 Universal Social 30 March 2011. Charge: Motion (Resumed)

Tá—continued

Durkan, Bernard J. McNamara, Michael. English, Damien. Mitchell, Olivia. Farrell, Alan. Mitchell O’Connor, Mary. Feighan, Frank. Mulherin, Michelle. Ferris, Anne. Murphy, Dara. Fitzpatrick, Peter. Murphy, Eoghan. Flanagan, Charles. Nash, Gerald. Flanagan, Terence. Naughten, Denis. Gilmore, Eamon. Neville, Dan. Griffin, Brendan. Nolan, Derek. Hannigan, Dominic. Noonan, Michael. Harrington, Noel. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Harris, Simon. O’Donnell, Kieran. Hayes, Tom. O’Donovan, Patrick. O’Dowd, Fergus. Heydon, Martin. O’Mahony, John. Hogan, Phil. O’Reilly, Joe. Howlin, Brendan. O’Sullivan, Jan. Humphreys, Heather. Penrose, Willie. Humphreys, Kevin. Perry, John. Keating, Derek. Phelan, Ann. Keaveney, Colm. Phelan, John Paul. Kehoe, Paul. Quinn, Ruairí. Kelly, Alan. Rabbitte, Pat. Kenny, Enda. Reilly, James. Kenny, Seán. Ring, Michael. Kyne, Seán. Shatter, Alan. Lawlor, Anthony. Sherlock, Sean. Lynch, Ciarán. Shortall, Róisín. Lynch, Kathleen. Spring, Arthur. Lyons, John. Stagg, Emmet. Maloney, Eamonn. Stanton, David. Mathews, Peter. Timmins, Billy. McCarthy, Michael. Tuffy, Joanna. McEntee, Shane. Twomey, Liam. McFadden, Nicky. Wall, Jack. McGinley, Dinny. Walsh, Brian. McHugh, Joe. White, Alex. McLoughlin, Tony.

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy..

Question declared carried.

917 School 30 March 2011. Staffing

Adjournment Debate

————

School Staffing Deputy Catherine Murphy: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for affording me the opportunity to raise this serious matter on behalf of some of the weakest people in society. While the issue relates to people in my constituency, the consequences of this decision go beyond St. Raphael’s special school in Celbridge, County Kildare. This Friday, a total of 4.5 special needs assistants will be made redundant from the school. An appeal has been made by the school to the National Council for Special Education but that appeal has been rejected. The school has been informed that this decision is final, yet children who commenced in the school last September have not yet been seen by a special needs assistant and they will be deeply affected by the redundancies. Some of the children have been categorised as having profound disabilities. It is said that a society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. These children have varying care needs. They also have educational needs. We take our ability to communicate for granted, but these children and their parents know what it is like for that skill to be absent. Not everyone is born with the same range of skills and talents. Some of the children who have been affected by the cuts are non-verbal. Some are making good progress since they commenced in St. Raphael’s. One parent told me that prior to going to the school, the only responses her child could make was to scream or to cry. Now that child can identify a glass of water or a food item, and this has made a profound difference to the lives of the whole family. I ask that a proper independent appeals mechanism be put in place with parental input as a right. They did not have an input into the appeal made by the school. Article 42 of the Consti- tution states the family is the primary and natural educator of the child, yet there is no provision for the family to be involved in the appeals process. This is a grievance which concerns people. This is an issue of natural justice. These children have not been assessed and this is wrong. I ask that at the very least, until the special educational needs organiser can assess these children and their needs, the decision on redundancies would be deferred.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I thank Deputy Murphy for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position on the matter raised by her which is of considerable importance, especially for those directly involved. The Deputy will be aware that the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, is responsible, through its network of local special educational needs organisers, SENOs, for allocating resource teachers and special needs assistants, SNAs, to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department’s criteria in allocating such support. St. Raphael’s special school is a designated school for children with moderate general learning disability, although the school also caters for some pupils who have severe levels of learning disability. I understand the school has 53 pupils enrolled and has 11 teachers, including a principal, and 20 special needs assistants. This results in an overall staffing to pupil ratio of one staff member per 1.7 pupils in the school, nearly one to one. The nature of the disabilities of the children attending this school means they have significant education and care needs. This is reflected in the high level of staffing and SNA support which has been allocated to the school. The NCSE has advised my Department that it considers this

918 School 30 March 2011. Enrolments level of staffing to be sufficient to meet the special educational and care needs of all the 53 pupils enrolled in the school, including the five pupils specifically referred to by the Deputy. I also wish to advise the Deputy that the NCSE has issued a circular to all schools advising of the SNA allocation process for the 2011-12 school year. A key feature of the amended scheme will be to provide for an annual allocation of SNA support to eligible schools. The NCSE will consider applications for additional SNA support in the context of this 9o’clock process for the 2011-12 school year. Schools will engage with the NCSE in this regard ahead of the next school year and the NCSE will review the SNA staffing requirements for schools, taking into account all the students who will be attending school from September next and any new students the school intends to enrol. As such, the overall SNA allocation for St. Raphael’s special school will be reviewed for the coming school year in this context. It is open to schools to contact their local special educational needs organiser should they have any queries in this regard. The reduction in a number of SNA posts in St. Raphael’s special school during the present school year relates to a nationwide review of all schools’ SNA allocation which has been carried out by the NCSE in recent years. My Department requested the NCSE to review all SNA posts nationally to ensure that SNA posts were allocated to schools in line with the care needs of the pupils and that any excess posts would be withdrawn. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the criteria governing the allocation of such posts were properly met. It is important to understand that SNA allocations are not permanent. The level of SNA support allocated to a school is increased or decreased as pupils who qualify for SNA support enrol or leave a school. They are also decreased where a child’s care needs may have diminished overtime. In other words success may result in the SNA support being deemed to be no longer required. The programme for Government clearly states that education will be a priority for the Government and that we will endeavour to protect and enhance the educational experience of children, young people and students. To that end, we will endeavour to protect front-line services in education. However, the fiscal position is extremely difficult and the country is effectively in receivership. It is necessary to ensure that educational services are delivered within the resources available. I intend to prioritise and support special educational services, though I cannot revisit the previous Government’s decision to place a cap on the number of posts available under the special needs assistant scheme. It should be noted however, that there are 10,575 posts available nationally under the SNA scheme to provide support for eligible children. This should be seen in comparison with 10,543 SNA posts in place at the end of December 2010 and 10,342 posts at the end of 2009. It is considered that with equitable and careful management and distribution of these resources there should be sufficient posts to provide access to SNA support for all children who require such care support to attend school in accordance with my Department’s criteria. My Department and I will be glad to consider any suggestions from school management or parent representative organisations as to how the allocation of SNA resources can best be managed within the context of the overall limit on SNA numbers that has been established. In this regard I am committed to making whatever improvements are possible to the resource allocation system. I thank the Deputy once again for raising this matter.

School Enrolments Deputy David Stanton: I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise the matter this evening and I also thank the Minister for coming in to respond. I live in Midleton in

919 School 30 March 2011. Enrolments

[Deputy David Stanton.] east Cork. The county development plan some years ago envisaged the reopening of the rail link to east Cork and led to a major increase in housing for people living in the area. The census figures for 2002 and 2007 show population increases of almost 26% in the Midleton area alone over those five years. This has led to a huge demand for school places, with 1,500 extra primary school pupils in just three years. While that is a major issue in itself, this evening I want to focus on post-primary provision, which is urgent and serious. The Department of Education and Skills analysis of primary school enrolment in 2009 showed significant differences between the numbers in sixth class and junior infants at some schools. In 21 schools there are double the number of pupils in junior infants that there are in sixth class. The projections show that this increase will necessitate as many as 64 new primary classrooms by 2015 and as many as 77 by 2020. However, at second level the schools are full as we speak. The Department’s figures indicate that 394 additional second level places will needed by 2015, which is almost 400 places in just four years time. I know officials in the Department are linking up with schools at the moment and doing their very best to address the situation but I want to encourage the Minister and his officials to redouble their efforts because as of now parents are extremely worried. They can see the trend in the numbers and know the schools are full. They are concerned that in a few years time pupils will be put on waiting lists and will have nowhere to go. One solution would be to allow the Christian Brothers secondary school in Midleton to expand. St. Mary’s, the girls’ secondary school is also seeking an increase in accommodation as it is very caught for space. In the long term Carrigtwohill needs a new coeducational second level school and I understand the VEC is investigating that option. I encourage the Minister to support that proposal. Cobh is under pressure and Glanmire had a waiting list last year. Fermoy is under pressure, and Midleton and Carrigtwohill are full as we speak. We need to start looking further down the road and a medium-term solution would be a new second level school in Carrigtwohill. St. Aloysius girls’ school in the town is very successful, but has a waiting list of approximately 120. I ask the Minister to make this a priority. Some 400 extra places will be needed in four years time and those pupils will have nowhere to go. I spoke to one of the principals today and he advised me that his school had 562 pupils in September 2010. By September 2016, he projects having 844 and the school is full as we speak. This matter is urgent and we know how long it takes to plan and develop new buildings and extensions. I hope the Minister has something positive to say — I know he will. I commend the officials who I know are working hard on the matter at the moment.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to address the provision of second level school places in Midleton and the east Cork area. I have a script and I will give it to the Deputy, but let me talk to him frankly. We have a serious crisis in education. There is a population cohort coming through our primary school system that is now beginning to manifest itself in the second level area. I would love the Deputy’s support to identify areas of need. I was in the Cork East constituency just before the general election. I met people in Midleton and elsewhere to discuss the problems. I would be most willing to entertain any creative ideas the Deputy has. It is a real problem. In 2008 we had the highest birth rate since 1898 when families were much larger. Those youngsters who started to impact in the primary school system are now coming into first year and parents who can do the sums recognise exactly what the impact will be. I would like to sit down with the Deputy and perhaps the other Deputies in the Cork East constituency. For all sorts of

920 Tax 30 March 2011. Code reasons that the Deputy knows better than I do, because of the geography and location there is much greater growth on the east end of the Cork city area than there is on the west. I will make sure the Deputy gets the text of the prepared reply, but it is in official Civil Service-ese. I would much sooner talk to him as one colleague to another to see how we can get more with less and how can we with small amounts of money expand some of the existing schools. However, new schools are needed. The Department estimates that 12 post-primary schools will be needed nationwide between now and 2016 each with 800 to 1,000 pupils. We have never been faced with those kinds of numbers and we have no model school design framework, which is something we will need to do. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter and he should feel free to come back to me on it.

Tax Code Deputy Joe McHugh: I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for facilitating this motion today and I thank the Minister, Deputy Bruton for coming to the House to take it. Rebalancing the Northern Ireland Economy was published by the British Treasury in line with the British Conservative Party general election promise to shift the emphasis of the Northern Ireland economy from the public sector to the private sector. It sets out proposals for fundamental economic reform. Its big-ticket item is the suggestion that Northern Ireland be designated as a distinct economic enterprise zone within the UK thus facilitating a 12.5% corporation tax for Northern Ireland. This would be a deviation by 13.5% from the UK corporation tax rate of 26% from April 2011 to 2014, which is a reduction of 1%. It also proposes tax credits for research and development, annual investment allowances, training credits and a national insurance holiday. It has been well received at Stormont. The Northern Ireland First Minister, Peter Robinson, MLA, said “It is not in the interests of Northern Ireland to be dependent on the [British] Exchequer for further new growth within our own economy”. Sinn Féin’s response has been very muted to say the least. It is a consultation paper that invites submissions within the next three months. The paper has potentially enormous implications for enterprise, employment and trade on this island and in this 26-county State. It is a two-sided coin; the sovereign governments must decide if they want Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to compete against each other or if they want Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to compete together. If the governments chose to compete together the proposal to bring Northern Ireland corporation tax in line with our rate makes sense and is an advancement. If this is to happen, a common enterprise platform requires a common cost base and a common approach to enterprise support by State agencies. Invest Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Invest- ment offer more attractive grant assistance packages to investors than the packages offered by IDA and Enterprise Ireland. Electricity costs, wage costs, transport costs and indirect taxation are lower in Northern Ireland. The British Treasury document that is the subject of this debate does not address these matters. If Northern Ireland retains its low-cost base and its attractive grant assistance packages the Republic of Ireland and not just the Border region will suffer. Where does the Government go from here? The Treasury document proposes to overcome the EU Azores ruling barriers to regionalise taxation rates by designating Northern Ireland as an economic enterprise zone. In July 2010 the Fine Gael Border forum proposed that the Dublin and Stormont Govern- ments should agree on a spatial definition of a cross Border area. Fine Gael proposed that the

921 Tax 30 March 2011. Code

[Deputy Joe McHugh.] North-South Ministerial Council should then develop a dedicated technical structure within its own budget and facilitate the development of an integrated plan for regional investment. The all-Ireland framework document written by former Minister, Mr. Dermot Ahern and former Secretary of State Mr. Peter Hain in November 2006 supplements Strand II of the Good Friday Agreement. The Hain-Ahern document notes that taxation is an important factor in economic competitiveness and declares that companies should be encouraged to redesign logis- tical strategies and treat Ireland as one commercial zone rather than two separate entities. If that bilateral agreement and Strand III of the Good Friday Agreement have any meaning, the Irish Government must engage fully and assertively with the British Treasury on these proposals. The programme for Government sets out the new Government’s ambitious agenda for the Border region and for the all-Ireland economy. We need the Cabinet’s Government economic management council on which the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister, Deputy Noonan and the Minister, Deputy Howlin, sit to discuss these matters and have a robust debate in the House on this issue. The fundamental question I am asking tonight is how we compete with the proposed changes in Northern Ireland and put our agenda forward. We have to anticipate these changes which seem to be coming and set the IDA up in such a way that we start looking at things differently and treating the economic challenges we have in the South. The Border area is a pertinent challenge in itself. We have to consider the possibility of having our own consultation document within the Border area.

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Deputy McHugh went a good deal further in his statement than the content of the joint consultation paper issued by the British Treasury. There is an unduly defensive approach to the idea of Northern Ireland developing a stronger private sector and a fear that it will be an entirely negative story. The truth is that a stronger growing economy North and South would create mutual gains. We have to consider this issue in a more positive manner than simply asking how we can defend ourselves from a more competitive Northern economy, in terms of tax and other policy instruments. That is at the heart of our programme for Government, in terms of how we can improve and develop our sectors. As the Deputy knows, the programme contains proposals to improve our tax mix and to reduce our rate of VAT and PRSI to strengthen the hands of companies competing at home and abroad. We have to be conscious that there is now a deliberate policy of developing a stronger domestic set of policy instruments in Northern Ireland which will have an impact. Competition is good for trade. We have to be aware of the issue but our overall strategy is to see the common development of the North and South. Many of our efforts concern how the two Governments have co-operated under the Good Friday Agreement on a win-win basis. I agree that we need to monitor this matter closely and that there are areas where we are uncompetitive. There is a continuous debate about the flow North and South. We have to be conscious in framing our excise policy, VAT policy and so on of the potential for an impact on those who are living in Border areas and are vulnerable to swings from the currency and tax mix. The view of the Deputy is one upon which I will reflect. We need to attune our strategy to a changed environment. It is a more positive opportunity than one about which I would be defensive. There are mutual gains in a stronger Northern economy with a stronger private sector where we can build mutual strengths. We need a sector which is growing strongly on

922 Air Services to 30 March 2011. County Kerry our doorstep because our recovery will be export led. The more activity being developed by independent and strong economic policies in Northern Ireland, the better for all of us. I welcome that the Deputy raised this issue. It is good that it was flagged. I may not have been briefed enough to respond to all of the issues he raised. I will reflect on what he said and respond in a fuller way directly to some of the issues which are not addressed in the reply provided to me.

Air Services to County Kerry Deputy Tom Fleming: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to bring the issue of Kerry Airport before the House. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, for being present to address it. Continuation of the reductions in Kerry to Dublin flights is impacting severely on tourism and business in County Kerry and on jobs as Kerry Airport. Will the Minister bring forward to a more immediate date the public service obligation contract which was originally scheduled for July? A new Ryanair schedule will see a further reduction in flights to and from Kerry and Dublin. We were contacted on this during the weekend. The schedule to be introduced in April will see just one return flight to Kerry each day and varying times on different days. The new schedule is likely to have a significant effect on business travellers using the route as it will no longer be possible to make a return flight to and from Kerry within one working day. Under a public service obligation contract, Ryanair had provided three daily return services on the Kerry to Dublin route. Last November Ryanair pulled out of the public service obligation contract and reduced the service to one flight from Kerry to Dublin on weekday morn- ings and a return flight from Dublin to Kerry each evening. Ryanair blamed the decision on rising costs and the then Government’s refusal to increase the public service obligation subsidy. Under a new schedule to come into effect next week just one Ryanair flight from Dublin to Kerry each day and the same plane will then make a return flight directly back to Dublin. The current 9.25 a.m. weekday service from Kerry to Dublin will be replaced by a 1.55 p.m. service on Monday, 4 p.m. on Tuesdays, 11.40 a.m. on Wednesday and 4.25 p.m. on Thursdays and Fridays, with no return option possible until the following day. As the Minister of State knows, the economy of County Kerry is hugely dependent on Kerry Airport and unless the situation is addressed in the immediate future the effects of peripherality on the county will be further exacerbated. Kerry will be further disadvantaged in these tough economic times. The advancement of the commencement date of the public service obligation contract is of paramount importance and I appeal to the Minister of State to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency.

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Deputy Michael Ring): I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, who is unable to be here as he is travelling to Brussels to attend a Transport Council meeting. I am acutely aware of the implications for County Kerry of the reduction in the level of service on the Kerry-Dublin route resulting from Ryanair’s decision to withdraw from the PSO contract. My Department is in the final stages of consultations with Kerry Airport on the specification for a new PSO air service on the Kerry-Dublin route. Discussions with the Euro- pean Commission are also ongoing. The next step in the process is the submission of necessary

923 The 30 March 2011. Adjournment

[Deputy Michael Ring.] PSO and tender notifications to the Commission for approval and publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. In line with EU guidelines, the process of renewal of a PSO contract takes a minimum of six months from the date the notices appear in the Official Journal. My Department is making every effort to expedite the completion of the necessary documentation and transmission to the Commission. Speaking on my tourism portfolio, I know how important this service is to County Kerry. The Department is making every effort to have the matter resolved as quickly as possible. I intend to be in the Deputy’s constituency on 12 April and know this important issue will be raised with me. The Department and I will make every effort to try to resolve it as quickly as possible. I again thank the Deputy for raising it.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 March 2011.

924 Questions— 30 March 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 9, inclusive, answered orally.

Questions Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, resubmitted.

Questions Nos. 19 to 29, inclusive, answered orally.

Social Welfare Code 30. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Social Protection the changes she will make to the operation of the habitual residency rule which is acting as a barrier for many returning emigrants, and family carers in particular, from accessing social welfare and the reason there was no mention of this issue in the programme for Government. [6014/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The habitual residence condition applies to social assistance payments and to child benefit. The determination of a person’s habitual residence is made in accordance with five factors which are set out in legislation, as follows:

(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;

(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State;

(d) the person’s main centre of interest, and

(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.”

These five factors have been derived from European Court of Justice case law. EU rules prevent discrimination on nationality grounds in relation to social security, so it is not possible to exempt a particular category of Irish citizens (such as returning emigrants) from the habitual residence condition (either in general or for carer’s allowance) without extending the same treatment to all EU nationals. However, the guidelines regarding determination of habitual residence address the issue of returning emigrants very specifically. The guidelines 925 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] state: “A person who had previously been habitually resident in the State and who moved to live and work in another country and then resumes his/her long-term residence in the State may be regarded as being habitually resident immediately on his/her return to the State.” In determining the main centre of interest in the case of returning emigrants, deciding officers take account of:

• purpose of return e.g. expiry of foreign residence permit

• the applicant’s stated intentions

• verified arrangements which have been made in regard to returning on a long-term basis e.g. transfer of financial accounts and any other assets, termination of residence based entitlements in the other country, or assistance from Safe Home or a similar programme to enable Irish emigrants to return permanently

• length and continuity of the previous residence in the State

• the record of employment or self employment in another State and

• whether s/he has maintained links with the previous residence and can be regarded as resuming his/her previous residence rather than starting a new period of residence. This is generally sufficient to enable the deciding officer to determine whether their present circumstances in Ireland indicate a temporary visit or habitual residence.

Social Welfare Benefits 31. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of Irish nationals deemed not to satisfy the habitual residence condition and the number where this determination was successfully overturned by the social welfare appeals office in 2009 and 2010 respectively. [6017/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Relatively few returning Irish emigrants are refused social welfare payments on grounds of habitual residence. 738 Irish citizens were disallowed a social welfare payment because of the habitual residence rule in 2009. Records for 2010 are incomplete due to industrial action. Jobseeker’s allowance accounted for over 70% of disallowances in 2009. In cases where returning Irish emigrants are refused social welfare payments on grounds of habitual residence, it is because the people in question do not have the required level of connection to Ireland under the relevant headings despite the fact that they are Irish citizens. The determination of a person’s habitual residence is made in accordance with Section 246 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended. Subsection (4) specifically directs the deciding officer to “take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including, in particular, the following:

(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;

(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State;

(d) the person’s main centre of interest, and

(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.”

926 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

The Department’s guidelines go on to point out that “No single factor is conclusive. The eviden- tial weight to be attributed to each factor will depend on the circumstances of each case. It is necessary to weigh up all the information and balance the evidence for and against an applicant satisfying the habitual residence condition”. The current guidelines address the impact of the habitual residence condition on returning Irish emigrants in the following terms:

“A person who had previously been habitually resident in the State and who moved to live and work in another country and then resumes his/her permanent residence in the State may be regarded as being habitually resident immediately on his/her return to the State.”

In determining habitual residence in such cases the deciding officer should take account of:

• purpose of return e.g. expiry of foreign residence permit

• the applicant’s stated intentions

• length and continuity of the previous residence in the State

• the record of employment or self employment in another State and

• whether s/he has maintained links with the previous residence and can be regarded as resuming his/her previous residence rather than starting a new period of residence.

Irish nationals returning to live here on a permanent basis should experience no difficulty in demonstrating that they satisfy the requirements of the habitual residence condition. I am informed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that statistics regarding the nationality of appellants are not maintained by that Office. Overall, however, in 2009, 1,383 decisions were by made by Appeals Officers in relation to the Habitual Residence Condition of which 328 were allowed or partly allowed and 1,055 disallowed. In 2010, 4,146 decisions were made in relation to the Habitual Residence Condition, of which 744 were allowed or partially allowed and 3,399 disallowed.

Tax and Social Welfare Codes 32. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Social Protection the expected timeframe within which the commission on taxation and social welfare will examine and publish recommendations on the interaction of the taxation and welfare systems as promised by the programme for Government. [6002/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair, balanced, and which recognises the need for social solidarity. As was stressed in the preamble to our Programme for Government, in order to address the very substantial problems that we face, it is essential that new ways, new approaches and new thinking will form the constant backdrop to the work of the Government. Creating jobs and tackling poverty are two of the key challenges that we face. It is essential that our tax and social protection systems play their part in addressing these problems. For this reason the Government will seek to benefit from the expertise of a Com-

927 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] mission on Tax and Social Welfare that will consider a number of issues arising out of the operation of the tax and social welfare systems. The Government will consider the scope of the commission’s work and the practical arrangements around its operation. An announcement will be made on these as soon as possible.

National Carers Strategy 33. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Social Protection when the national carers strategy will be published. [6013/11]

45. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to develop a carers strategy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5977/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 33 and 45 together. During 2008, an interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, undertook work to develop a National Carers’ Strategy. The Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Health and Children, and Social and Family Affairs, as well as the Health Service Executive and FÁS were represented on the group. The group met on six occasions during 2008 and the expertise of other Departments and Agencies was drawn on as particular issues were being considered. Discussions were also held with colleagues in Northern Ireland. A wide ranging consultation process was also undertaken which included a meeting with the social partners; two meetings with carer representative groups; and a public consultation process. While each of the themes set out in the terms of reference was examined in terms of the current position, because of the prevailing economic situation, it was not possible to agree future targets or time limits which could be achieved. In that context, rather than publishing a document which did not include any significant plans for the future, the then Government decided not to publish a strategy. The Government is committed in the Programme for Government to developing a carers’ strategy. It will consider how to progress the development of the strategy, taking into account the prevailing economic realities.

Proposed Legislation 34. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress made to date regarding the introduction of gender recognition legislation; the timetable for introduction of same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6009/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Gender Recognition Advisory Group was established in 2010 with the following terms of reference:- “To advise the Minister for Social Protection on the legislation required to provide for legal recognition of the acquired gender of transsexuals. In particular, to propose heads of a bill to provide for:

• The establishment of a process for legal recognition of the acquired gender of persons suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, who have made the transition from one gender to another.

• The establishment of a gender recognition register

• The granting of entitlement to marry in the legally recognised reassigned gender, and

928 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

• Any other provisions as may be deemed necessary consequent to the main provisions of the Bill.” The Group is made up of representatives of various Departments and Offices of State. The group has met on a number of occasions and has engaged in extensive consultation with a range of representative organisations and individuals with knowledge and expertise in the area, both in Ireland and abroad. Further consultation, research and discussion is required on the issues arising. I understand that the group hopes to report within a matter of weeks. As the Deputy will be aware, there are a number of detailed stages and procedures involved in drafting and enacting legislation, so it is not possible for me to set out a timetable for the introduction of legislation in this matter at the present time.

Social Welfare Benefits 35. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cut to child benefit introduced in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6005/11]

36. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to reverse any of the welfare cuts imposed by the previous Government in the areas of disability payments, child benefit, rent allowance and jobseeker’s payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6028/11]

37. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cuts to jobseeker’s payment rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6020/11]

39. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cuts to disability payment rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6023/11]

40. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cuts to carer’s payments rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6021/11]

43. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cut of 4% to the so-called working age social welfare rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6006/11]

929 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

48. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Social Protection if the commitment in the programme for Government to maintain social welfare rates refers to all welfare payments and if this commitment is intended to last for the full duration of the Government’s term. [5975/11]

49. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse the cuts to lone parent payment rates introduced by the previous Government in budget 2011 and if so, when. [6022/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48 and 49 together. This Government takes up office in the context of a profound banking, fiscal and jobs crisis and the decision to seek external financial assistance which has been provided by the EU and the IMF. This crisis has been caused by the reckless mismanagement of the economy by previous Governments. The priority of this Government is to get our economy moving, restore confidence, fix our banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. The success of our economic plans will lay the foundation for the rest of our agenda for change. Sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for economic stability and growth. To this end, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. We believe it is appropriate, in order to enhance international credibility, to stick to the aggregate adjustment as set out in the National Recovery Plan for the combined period 2011-2012. Accordingly, the appropriate levels of social welfare rates will be considered in the context of budget 2012. This Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair, balanced, and which recognises the need for social solidarity. In this regard, the programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain social welfare rates. In the meantime, the Government’s priority is to develop a strategy to allow job growth and sustainable enterprise. This is central to any recovery strategy. The Government will, over its first 100 days, introduce and resource a series of measures designed to reduce unemployment and get Ireland working again. These will include measures to significantly increase the number of training, education and work experience opportunities as well as a wide range of other initiatives. I look forward to developing these with my colleagues over the next few weeks so that they can be announced and implemented as soon as possible.

Departmental Schemes 38. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will make any changes to the Tús scheme including if she will introduce reforms to make participation in the scheme genuinely voluntary in view of the fact that it involves caring for older persons and persons with disabilities. [6011/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Tús is a new activation measure which will provide 5,000 people on the Live Register with a work placement opportunity with community, voluntary and not-for-profit organisations and service providers. These work placements will be 12 months long and support the work of the voluntary sector across the country. Persons on the Live Register for at least 12 months and in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance will be selected at random by the Department and offered an opportunity to participate in this work placement initiative. Where a customer does not wish to take up the opportunity, he or she is asked to provide reasons to the Department, and this may affect his or her payment. There are currently no plans to make changes to the eligibility or selection criteria for Tús. Tús will be delivered via the 52 local development companies and by Údarás na Gaeltachta in Gaeltacht areas. These bodies will have responsibility for the roll-out and delivery of Túsat

930 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers local level and play a key role in identifying work placement opportunities and ensuring that persons selected for participation are matched with and suitable for the work placement. Primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and protection of children and vulnerable adults will rest with the work placement provider. The local development companies will be required to work with each placement provider to make arrangements in respect of Garda vetting and appropriate training in respect of child protection and security for vulnerable adults and the elderly.

Questions Nos. 39 and 40 answered with Question No. 36.

Civil Registration Service 41. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5959/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The administration of the Civil Regis- tration Service is statutorily a matter for the Registrar General. I have made enquiries with the Registrar General and he has informed me that the general review of the provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004 is expected to be completed by the middle of this year. There are a range of issues to be considered in relation to the scope and implementation of any proposed changes to the provisions of the Act and some of these issues may have cross-departmental implications, which need to be considered also.

Health Service Staff 42. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress made to date and plans for the transfer of community welfare officers to her Department including clarification on where the CWOs will be located; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6000/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Late last year agreement was reached between the Health Service Executive (HSE) and unions representing the Community Welfare Officers that the staff of the Community Welfare Service (CWS) would transfer to the Depart- ment of Social Protection with effect from 1st January 2011 on a secondment basis initially. The period of secondment is to last for 9 months until the end of September 2011. During this period, the various HR and administrative systems (such as payroll records) are to be put in place and the ongoing IR negotiations brought to a conclusion. While on secondment, the staff will remain employees of the HSE and, as such, will retain their existing terms and conditions, and will be represented by SIPTU and IMPACT. From 1 October 2011 it is intended that the staff of the CWS will be transferred fully to the Department as civil servants and that associated resources such as buildings and administrative budget funding will also be transferred. The Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2010 provided the legislative basis for this to happen. Legislation to enable the Department to administer the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme directly was introduced in the Social Welfare and Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008. I can confirm that the staff of the CWS did second to the Department from the beginning of this year. A number of events were held for the service so that staff could meet the Secretary General and other members of the Management Board and obtain clarification of the implications of the transfer and plans for the future development of the integrated Department. In practice, substantial progress has been made at local and regional level in integrating the Service and the Department. Regional co-ordinators and superintendent community welfare

931 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] officers are now members of the Department’s regional management teams, which meet regularly. Furthermore, six temporary transition managers have been appointed from within the CWS, following a competitive process, to assist in the transfer and integration process. A number of initiatives are underway at local level to address issues of mutual concern, improve communications and remove duplication and overlaps between the CWS and DSP Local Offices. Negotiations between the unions and management side are continuing under the auspices of the labour Relations Commission (LRC) to resolve the outstanding industrial relations issues.

Question No. 43 answered with Question No. 36.

Question No. 44 answered with Question No. 27.

Question No. 45 answered with Question No. 33.

Pension Provisions 46. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Social Protection the position on the previous Government’s plan to abolish the State pension transition in 2014; her views that such a move will create a poverty trap; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6018/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The challenges facing the Irish pension system are significant. In particular, the task of financing increasing pension spending will fall to a diminishing share of the population. There are currently six workers for every pensioner and this ratio is expected to decrease to less than two to one by 2050. Increasing State pension age is one of the ways in which we can sustain the pensions system and also maintain the value of the State pension at 35% of average earnings. People are living longer and healthier lives with average life expectancy set to rise even further in the future, up to 89 years for women and 83 for men. People will still, therefore, be spending at least the same amount of time in retirement as they are today, even with a later State pension age. Therefore, as announced as part of the National Pensions Framework, state pension age will be increased gradually to 68 years. This will begin in 2014 with the standardisation of the state pension age at 66. State pension age will be increased to 67 years in 2021 and to 68 in 2028. As agreed under the EU/IMF Memorandum of Understanding, these changes will be provided for in legislation by mid-2011. The details and timeframes for these changes are set out in the National Pensions Frame- work, which was published on 3 March 2010. The aim of the Framework is to deliver security, equity, choice and clarity for the individual, the employer and the State. It also aims to increase pension coverage, particularly among low to middle income groups and to ensure that State support for pensions is equitable and sustainable. An implementation group chaired by my Department is developing the legislative, regulatory and administrative infrastructure required to put the necessary reforms into operation. However, in addition to these changes, both employees and employers must be encouraged to change their attitudes to working longer. In the workplace, employers must seek to retain older employees and create working conditions which will make working longer both attractive and feasible for the older worker. Where this is not possible and people leave paid employment before State pension age, they will be entitled to apply for another social welfare payment until they become eligible for a State pension, as is the current situation.

932 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Social Welfare Code 47. Deputy Michael Colreavy asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will make all working age schemes conditional on activation and, if not, which schemes will not be conditional on same. [6004/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Activation measures are designed to assist people in receipt of social welfare payments to move into employment and that they are facilitated in doing so by ensuring that they have relevant skills in a changing labour market. The process underway, wherein the Employment and Community Services elements of FÁS, as well as the Community Welfare Service, are being integrated into the Department, will enhance the effectiveness of activation interventions for customers of working age and deliver positive outcomes for them. While, initially, people in receipt of unemployment payments will be the primary focus of enhanced activation measures within the new service, a number of specific changes have also been introduced to facilitate other customers of working age schemes in engaging with the labour market. The introduction of a partial capacity scheme is proposed as a policy response primarily aimed at addressing the gap in provision in relation to the variation in the capacity of recipients of a range of social insurance-based illness, disability and invalidity payments to engage in the active labour market. In addition, legislative changes have been introduced relating to one parent families to alter the passive nature of current income maintenance arrangements. At present, one parent family payment can be paid in respect of children up to 18 years of age (22 if in ongoing education). From April 2011, the allowance will, with special arrangements for specific situations, only be paid until the youngest child reaches 14 years of age — with some transition arrangements for current recipients. Thereafter, the person may apply for a jobseeker’s payment and will be subject to the conditionality associated with that payment. The Department is aware of the inherent issues in the current contingency-based system. In this regard, it recently published a report on the feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for all people of working age. The introduction of a single social assistance payment would represent a fundamental overhaul of the assistance system and refocus it on participation with the overall objective of ensuring better outcomes for people and their families relying on income support and of reducing benefit dependency. The vision for a single payment is based on the objective that everyone is given or directed to the support and services they need in order to enter employment, or other training or educational opportunities. In return, provision of such relevant supports is matched by an expectation that they take up that support and that there is, therefore, a matching of rights and responsibilities. The developments outlined above will be monitored and the outcomes will inform any extension of conditionality above and beyond what is currently in place or planned. Pending this, customers of schemes where conditionality is not currently a feature are, of course, free to avail of activation measures such as back-to-education and the back-to-work allowances where appropriate, and also to access advice and guidance available from facilitators or employment service officers.

Questions Nos. 48 and 49 answered with Question No. 36.

50. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide details on the programme for Government commitment to expand eligibility for the back to education allowance including a timeframe and the intended form of expansion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6001/11]

933 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The focus of the back to education allowance (BTEA) is to assist those who are most marginalised and distant from the labour market to acquire the necessary education to improve their chances of becoming independent of the social welfare system. The BTEA scheme can offer participation in second and third level education by enabling eligible people on social welfare to continue to receive a payment while pursuing an approved full-time education course that leads to a higher qualification than that already held. In acknowledgement that the BTEA scheme has an important role to play in enhancing the employability skills of jobseekers, the Programme for Government 2011-2016 includes a commitment to resource a Jobs Fund that will finance a number of measures including the expansion of the eligibility for the BTEA scheme. This commitment is under active consideration in my Department.

Anti-Poverty Strategy 51. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will publish a detailed poverty impact study of the current budget and if she will conduct a poverty impact study of budget 2012 in advance of same. [6019/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): An analysis of the distributive and poverty impacts on families of the tax/welfare package in Budget 2011, including the impact of the four Budgets over the period 2009 to 2011 inclusive, was carried out by my Department last December with the technical assistance of the Social Inclusion Division of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs. I arranged to have this analysis published on my Departmental website in the last few days. I intend to conduct a poverty impact analysis of the welfare changes in Budget 2012 prior to the announcement of that Budget.

Social Welfare Appeals 52. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide details on the programme for Government’s commitment to divert staff from elsewhere in the public service to clear the social welfare appeals backlog, including the number, when and from where these staff will be diverted. [6007/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The need for additional resources to deal with a very significant increase in the number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office has been recognised by my Department. The annual intake of appeals has increased from 14,070 in 2007 to 32,432 in 2010, an increase of 18,362 (130.5%) and currently it appears that another 30,000 will be received during 2011. In this context, 9 additional appointments have been made to the office in recent weeks. 3 of these appointments are permanent assignments and 6 are temporary assignments for a period of 2 years, subject to review. These assignments will augment the 3 appointments made to the Office in 2010, bringing the total number of Appeals Officers serving in the office to 29. The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2010 facilitated the use of experienced retired former Appeals Officers, on a strictly temporary basis to assist in bringing the backlogs under control. As a result, 8 of these officers have been employed since July of last year giving the equivalent of an additional 3 full time staff. Because of the quasi-judicial nature and complexity of the work there can be a relatively long lead-in time before new Appeals Officers become fully competent to deal with the full range of cases coming to the Office. In that regard and to ensure there is no loss of output during the period of training of the newly appointed Officers, these retired former Appeals Officers will continue to assist in the Office until the

934 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers end of this year. In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, the matter of providing further additional staff will be kept under continuous review. In conjunction with the provision of extra staff, the Chief Appeals Officer is undertaking a review of the current operating model with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals, while ensuring that any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of appellants and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.

Employment Support Services 53. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection the action being taken by her to address the serious problem in which 51.5% of all those unemployed are long-term unemployed; the initiatives being planned to prevent this number increasing and to help those who are structurally unemployed to get back into the labour market; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5878/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Department of Social Protection operates a range of employment support measures designed to encourage and support social welfare recipients of working age to reduce their dependency on welfare payments. These include the employment support schemes, the activation programme and the Department’s role in the National Employment Action Plan. The Department also supports new activation measures undertaken by other agencies, for example, the Work Placement Programme administered by FÁS and the Labour Market Activation Fund administered by the Department of Education and Skills. While the primary responsibility for job creation rests with the Department of Enterprise Trade and Innovation, this Department already has a role in supporting people from welfare to work. The National Employment Action Plan is the main activation measure for jobseekers and provides for a systematic engagement of the employment services with unemployed people. It has been in operation since 1998 and has proven successful in that period in assisting people on the live register back into employment. Under the Plan, all persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are approaching 3 months on the Live Register, are identified by the Department of Social Protection and referred to FÁS for interview with the aim of assisting them to enter/re-enter the labour market. The Employment Action Plan process is a key element in addressing the progression needs of those on the Live Register. It provides a stimulus to job search and affords an opportunity to explore, under professional guidance, the full range of employment and training services offered by FÁS. In addition, the Back to Work Enterprise Allowance is operated by my Department and is designed to provide a monetary incentive for people who are long term dependent on social welfare payments to make a return to work financially attractive and viable. The Short Term Enterprise Allowance is payable to a person who qualifies for Jobseekers’ Benefit and who wishes to commence in self employment. This allowance is payable for the duration of their Jobseeker’s Benefit entitlement. The Employer Job (PRSI) Incentive Scheme was launched in 2010 and extended until end 2011. The purpose of the scheme is to support job creation and counter the drift of people into long-term unemployment and welfare dependency. In addition, the Tús initiative will provide for up to 5,000 places when fully rolled out. A re-configuration of Government departments has already taken effect to develop a more comprehensive and effective activation strategy that will strengthen the links between getting benefits, searching for a job and participating in employment and training programmes. Bring-

935 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] ing together, under the aegis of one department, the employment services of FÁS, the expertise of its employment support officers and the unemployment services of this Department will offer significant opportunities to generate synergies, improve efficiency and, ultimately, improve service delivery to those availing of those services.

Census of Population 54. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Taoiseach the position regarding census employees (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6166/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): A total of 5,344 temporary field staff are currently employed by the CSO to carry out the field work on the 2011 census, of whom 4,854 are census enumerators. All of the recruitment for the census field operation has been carried out by the CSO under licence by the Commission for Public Service Appointments and complies with their strict recruitment principles regarding fairness, equality, openness and transparency. It is important to note that all applicants for enumerator positions were assessed at interview on their availability for census work (given the need to make frequent calls to households at different times of the day); those in full-time work were assessed as having low availability and so would be unlikely to be offered enumerator positions ahead of other suitably qualified candidates. It is more likely that enumerators who were already in employment were working part-time elsewhere. However it was not open to the CSO to exclude people on this basis. The following table indicates the employment situation and live register status of the 4,854 enumerators, prior to their employment on the census, detailed by the 44 census regions. Sutton and Baldoyle fall into Region 2. A description of the location of the 44 regions is available on the census.ie website. Information on whether persons were previously self-employed, the sectors in which they previously worked and, if applicable, their pension arrangements is not collated as part of the recruitment process and so is unavailable.

Previous Employment Situation of Census Total No. of Of which: On Live Enumerators Enumerators Register

Region Employed Not employed

1 38 61 100 1 2 47 64 113 6 3 44 83 130 17 4 37 83 124 10 5 48 70 123 16 6 42 73 121 47 7 35 64 106 15 8 47 60 115 25 9 46 72 127 3 10 39 77 126 4 11 33 80 124 13 12 47 76 135 3 13 34 63 110 17 14 29 81 124 11 15 40 70 125 26 16 37 73 126 1 17 45 66 128 11

936 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Previous Employment Situation of Census Total No. of Of which: On Live Enumerators Enumerators Register

Region Employed Not employed

18 54 55 127 45 19 44 66 129 24 20 52 59 131 9 21 40 71 132 24 22 40 69 131 43 23 40 69 132 1 24 54 55 133 0 25 39 61 125 27 26 53 58 137 40 27 32 78 137 18 28 38 75 141 28 29 31 69 129 15 30 33 77 140 6 31 51 58 140 9 32 40 65 137 8 33 29 70 132 23 34 32 77 143 0 35 39 72 146 48 36 54 66 156 17 37 53 57 147 1 38 38 72 148 11 39 29 80 148 14 40 35 86 161 28 41 41 68 150 34 42 28 82 152 23 43 34 73 150 3 44 36 73 153 15

Total 1,777 3,077 4,854 740

Departmental Agencies 55. Deputy David Stanton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the agencies or bodies under the aegis of his Department which he plans to make accountable to Dáil Éireann through the parliamentary question system; when he expects this to occur for each of the agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6178/11]

The Taoiseach (Deputy Enda Kenny): The Deputy will be aware that the Programme for Government contains a range of measures, including the one referred to by the Deputy in his Question, to reform and modernise the ways in which the Dáil carries out its functions. The Government Chief Whip will bring forward proposals to give effect to the commitments in the Programme as they relate to Dáil Reform, for consideration by the Government in the first instance. Once a package of proposals has been agreed at Government, the Chief Whip will consult on them with the other Party Whips through the Dáil Reform Sub-Committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. 937 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Passport Applications 56. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if a person (details supplied) will be able to apply and receive a passport for their child. [6062/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): The Passports Act, 2008 requires that a person must be an Irish citizen before a passport can be issued to him/her. The person in question was born in Ireland last October. Under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, (1956 Act) persons born in the State after 1 January 2005, where neither parent is an Irish or British citizen or otherwise entitled to reside without restric- tion in the State or in Northern Ireland, may claim citizenship by birth in the State (and thereby establish eligibility for a passport) only where a parent has been lawfully resident in the State for three years of the four years preceding their birth. In the case of applications for passports arising from the terms of the 1956 Act, it is the practice of the Passport Service to seek evidence of lawful residence in the State by one or both parents. The types of evidence considered are immigration stamps in passports and Garda National Immigration Bureau cards and registration books. In this case an application on behalf of the child was presented to the public counter at the Passport Office in Molesworth Street (PPO) last October. On examination of the application and the supporting documentation, it was determined that the applicant’s mother had not sufficient lawful residence in the State to demonstrate her daughter’s entitlement to Irish citizenship under the 1956 Act. The applicant’s mother was informed of this and advised that a passport could not issue to her daughter. As there was no purpose in pursuing the application, it was never registered with the Department. On 20 October, 2010 solicitors representing the applicant’s mother wrote to the Department about her daughter’s passport entitlement. This letter included evidence of the mother’s residence in the State. This was reviewed by officials in the Passport Service which found that the original decision not to issue a passport was correct. The solicitors were advised of this by the Department in a letter dated 29 November, 2010. The Department’s letter also noted the absence of issued permissions to stay in the State from the Irish immigration authorities during the four year period prior to the child’s birth in 2010. This had a direct and negative effect on the calculated amount of reckonable residence for the applicant’s mother. It was, however, pointed out that all issues relating to immigration and citizenship are the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Law Reform and that it was a matter for them and their client to pursue such matters with that Department. To date, no reply from the solicitors has been received. However, if as a result of their contact with the Department of Justice and Law Reform, the applicant’s mother is in a position to demonstrate her daughter’s entitlement to Irish citizenship, this Department will be in a position to issue a passport on receipt of a completed and witnessed passport application.

57. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of passports issued in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and to date in 2011; the average process time to issue a passport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6109/11]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Eamon Gilmore): The number of passports issued over the period 2007 to 2011 is as follows:

938 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Year Passports Issued

2007 601,000 2008 576,617 2009 572,783 2010 603,753 2011 to 18 March 106,615

The average time to process a passport submitted through the Passport Express and Northern Ireland Passport Express services available through the post offices is ten days. It takes on average four — six weeks to process all other applications. Applications with proof of travel may also avail of a fast-track service where passports are guaranteed to be processed within three working days. Applicants should make contact with the Passport Service and provide this proof where applicable. An additional fee will apply in respect of such new applications. This is the fastest turnaround time for all applications except for those whose travel is required for urgent humanitarian reasons. This 3 day service applies to applications submitted in Ireland only. I intend that sufficient resources are made available to ensure that these processing times are achieved. In this context I can confirm that the first batch of additional temporary seasonal staff for the Passport Service commenced work on 28 March.

Departmental Expenditure 58. Deputy Eric Byrne asked the Minister for Finance the way social impact bonds will be issued; the person who will regulate the system of social impact bonds and where the funds garnered from them will be used. [6063/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government Programme for National Recovery 2011-2016 provides that the Government will establish a new model of financing social interventions — called Social Impact Bonds — that share audited exchequer savings with charitable and voluntary organisations. The Government will consider how best to establish this new and innovative mechanism and will bring forward proposals in due course.

Programmes for Government 59. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Finance the major policy documents (details supplied) developed by the previous Government which will be pursued by the current Government. [5917/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The Government has set out its programme in the document A Government for National Recovery 2011-2016. The measures contained in the programme represent the Government’s assessment of the policies that should be pursued in the best interests of the country. The Government is fully committed to reaching the 3 per cent of GDP General Government deficit target. However, we believe that the appropriate time-scale to achieve this is over the period to 2015. It is important to remember that this one- year extension to the time period for restoring order to the public finances had already been provided for by the Ecofin Council agreement of December last and as such is entirely consistent with the views of the EU Commission. 939 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

In order to enhance our international credibility, the Government believes it is appropriate to adhere to the aggregate budgetary adjustment as set out in the National Recovery Plan for the combined period 2011-2012. In preparation for Budget 2013, we will review progress on deficit reduction, in terms of achieving the objective of reaching the 3 per cent of GDP deficit target by 2015. The overall macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts are currently being reviewed in light of emerging economic and fiscal data, as well as the Programme for Government and they will be presented in the Irish Stability Programme Update which is due to be submitted to the EU Commission by the end of April in line with the terms of the new EU Semester. The Government believes that job creation is central to any recovery strategy and for this reason the Government will bring forward specific proposals in this regard in the coming weeks, as promised as part of the Programme for Government’s “first 100 days” commitment. The Public Service Agreement, or Croke Park Agreement as it is commonly referred to, represents an agreed response by the management and unions in the public service to the need to reduce the cost of the public service as a contribution to addressing the deficit in the public finances. The Agreement facilitates the reduction in public service employee numbers while maintaining industrial peace and maintaining the provision of necessary public services to the maximum extent possible. The Agreement is consistent with the agreed Programme for Government and the Government is committed to maximising the potential of the Agreement.

Tax Collection 60. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding a tax rebate application in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6060/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): I am informed by the Revenue Commis- sioners that they received an application for mortgage interest relief for 2010 on 14th March last. Revenue is satisfied that the person concerned has an entitlement to interest relief from 2007 to 2010 on the basis of qualifying loans taken out by him. The relief applies also to 2011. Relief for 2011 will be granted at source through the mortgage provider and directly from Revenue to the customer for the years 2007 to 2010.

National Pensions Reserve Fund 61. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the current value, including a breakdown by asset type, of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the amount of the remaining value of the fund that has been committed to further bank recapitalisation and any capital projects. [6061/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): The total value of the National Pensions Reserve Fund at 31 December 2010 was €24.4 billion. This figure comprised €9.5 billion in the Directed Portfolio (the value of investments in Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks held on the direction of the Minister for Finance) and €14.9 billion in the Discretionary Portfolio (the balance of the Fund excluding directed investments). The National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission publishes a report on the performance of the NPRF at the end of each quarter on its website www.nprf.ie. The following table sets out the asset allocation of the NPRF as at 31 December 2010:

940 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

€m* % of % of Total Fund Discretionary Portfolio

Large Cap Equity 5,781 38.6% Small Cap Equity 998 6.7% Emerging Markets Equity 1,547 10.3%

Quoted Equity 8,326 56.6%

Eurozone Government Bonds 142 0.9% Eurozone Inflation Linked Bonds 68 0.5% Eurozone Corporate Bonds 1,011 6.8% Cash 2,289 15.3%

Financial Assets 3,511 23.5%

Private Equity 885 5.9% Property 1,017 6.8% Commodities 524 3.5% Infrastructure 530 3.5% Absolute Return Funds 172 1.2%

Alternative Assets 3,128 20.9%

Total Discretionary Portfolio 14,965 100% 61.3%

Directed Investments 9,458 38.7%

Total Portfolio 24,423 100.0% *figures subject to rounding.

The National Pensions Reserve Fund (NPRF) was established in 2001 under the National Pensions Reserve Fund Act 2000. The purpose in establishing the NPRF was to meet as much as possible of the cost to the Exchequer of social welfare pensions and public service pensions to be paid from the year 2025 until at least 2055. The NPRF Commission is responsible for the overall control, management and investment of the assets of the Fund. The legislation was amended by the Investment of the National Pensions Reserve Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2009 and the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 to allow the Minister for Finance to direct the NPRF Commission to invest in credit institutions in certain circumstances, to buy government and government-guaranteed securities and to make payments to the Exchequer in the years 2011 to 2013 to fund capital expenditure. As announced on 28 November 2010, the assets of the National Pensions Reserve Fund are to be used as part of the State’s €17.5 billion contribution to the €85 billion EU-IMF Prog- ramme of Financial Support for Ireland. It is envisaged that €10 billion of this amount will be sourced from the NPRF. On 23 February 2011, my predecessor directed the NPRF Commission to hold €5.5 billion in cash or comparable instruments as the first part of a phased de-risking of the €10 billion which is required from the NPRF under the Programme of Financial Support for Ireland. The Government has indicated in its Programme for Government that it sees a significant role for the NPRF in providing funding for its National Development Plan on a commercial basis. We have also stated that we will construct a €100 million Microfinance Start-Up Fund that will provide start-up loans and equity that draws funding from the NPRF and private institutional funds. 941 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Michael Noonan.]

The NPRF, in keeping with its commercial statutory remit, has (i) indicated that it has agreed in principle to fund a water metering investment programme up to an amount of €550 million (subject to certain pre-conditions) and (ii) in the context of a 5% allocation of the Discretionary Portfolio to infrastructure, indicated its preferred approach is to invest up to €500 million alongside third-party institutional investors in infrastructure assets in Ireland. The Fund has committed €125 million to Innovation Fund Ireland and has also made other investments in Irish venture capital projects. With regard to further bank recapitalisation, the Government will not make a decision in relation to recapitalisation until the results of the Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR) exercise are available. These results are to be published on Thursday, 31 March 2011.

Public Sector Pay 62. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if non-teaching school staff who are not either fully or partly-funded from the Exchequer are also subject to the pay cuts introduced for Exchequer-funded posts under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6085/11]

Minister for Finance (Deputy Michael Noonan): As I mentioned in my response to PQ5488/11 by the Deputy on Wednesday, 23rd March, 2011, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 provides for the reduction in the pay rates of all persons employed by public service bodies, as defined under the Act, with effect from 1 January 2010. The non-teaching staff referred to in the question are, whether employed in recognised public or private schools, deemed to be public servants within the meaning of and for the purposes of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 and the method by which such posts may be funded does not alter this position. This has been confirmed by legal advice. As noted also in my response to PQ5488/11 the former Minister for Finance approved a temporary exemption under Section 6 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act for certain categories of workers in the education sector (including certain caretakers and secretaries) until 31 December 2010. Accordingly, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act has been applied to those specific categories of workers in the education sector since 1 January 2011 only.

School Staffing 63. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will respond to a matter raised in correspondence by a school (details supplied) in County Cork. [6056/11]

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 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 Department 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. There are new redeployment arrangements in operation at post-primary level. All schools must fully comply with these arrangements as the country cannot afford to leave teachers surplus in some schools and continue to recruit teachers in other schools. The Government will endeavour to protect front-line education services as best as possible. However, this must be done within the context of bringing our overall public expenditure into line with what we can

942 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers afford as a country. We all have to understand the legacy of economic mismanagement which the last Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government gave to this country.

Special Educational Needs 64. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Education and Skills if persons (details supplied) will be facilitated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6057/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) is responsible, through its network of local Special Educational Needs Organisers (SENOs) for allocating resource teachers and Special Needs Assistants to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Depart- ment’s criteria in allocating such support. I have arranged for the details supplied to be forwarded to the NCSE for their attention and direct reply. 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.

Schools Building Projects 65. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Education and Skills the timescale for the construction of a school (details supplied) in Dublin 7; if he will ensure that a hall or gymnasium is provided; if he will ensure maximum consultation with the staff and parents of the school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6058/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As the Deputy may be aware my Department has met on several occasions with both the GAA club and Dublin City Council, in their respective capacities as the land-holders and as the planning authority to negotiate with both parties an acceptable solution for the provision of a new school building on the site currently occupied by the school. The net result of these discussions was that after having gone through a number of potential design solutions, an optimal design solution was agreed in principle which would have regard to a number of factors such as the restricted nature of the site, the existing facilities on the overall site, the concerns of the planning authority in relation, inter alia, to traffic management issues and the concerns of the GAA Club in relation to their existing playing pitches. To this end, my Department is now in the process of working up a detailed planning application based on the initial design solution discussed with the aforementioned parties. The Deputy can be assured that the school authorities will be informed of the proposed design solution and the rationale informing such a solution in advance of the formal submission of the planning application. The Deputy may also wish to note that within the last few days Dublin City Council has advised my Department that the proposed disposal has been approved at a meeting of the Central Area Committee and the way is now open for the Elected Members to consider the disposal of that portion of the site being made available in accordance with Section 183 of the Local Government Act 2001.

Employment Support Services 66. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Education and Skills the arrangement he has made to ensure that redundant apprentices will receive work placements to enable them to complete their apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6059/11]

943 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): A significant number of measures are currently in place to enable registered redundant apprentices to progress in their apprenticeships. Under the apprenticeship programme administered by FÁS, the rules for off-the-job training have been amended to permit redundant apprentices to progress to their next off-the- job training phases. To date in 2011, 714 apprentices, registered as redundant, had completed their next off-the-job training phase. An additional 454 are scheduled to commence off-the-job training in April 2011. The Redundant Apprentice Placement Scheme introduced by FÁS last year to provide work placement opportunities for redundant apprentices to complete on-the-job training at Phase 3, 5 and 7, has been broadened in 2011 to include placements with employers in both the private and public sectors. The scheme, for which €7.3m in funding is being provided, aims to provide placement and training for up to 1,000 apprentices. The maximum period of placement is 26 weeks at Phase 3 or 26 weeks at Phase 5 or 12 weeks at Phase 7. Under the 2010 scheme, the employment costs of the redundant apprentice, which were in line with industry wage norms, were paid by the employer with FÁS contributing a weekly subsidy of €250. 443 redundant apprentices availed of this measure in 2010. The new 2011 scheme requires no wage contribution from the employer while FÁS pays the appropriate on-the-job training phase allowance to the redundant apprentice involved. Eligible redundant apprentices are referred by FÁS to approved employers to participate in the scheme. To date in 2011, 303 redundant apprentices have been placed on the scheme with a further 29 applications approved. In addition, under the Phase 7 Equivalent Assessments Scheme, redundant apprentices in the trades of Carpentry and Joinery, Cabinet Making, Electrical, Plumbing, Brick and Stonelay- ing, and Plastering, who have successfully completed Phases 1 to 6 of their apprenticeships but who have not completed on-the-job Phase 7 Assessments, are scheduled by FÁS to undertake Phase 7 Equivalent Assessments over a 4 week period in a FÁS Training Centre. Under the Recognition of Prior Learning Scheme, redundant apprentices who have successfully completed Phases 1 to 7 (or Phase 7 Equivalent Assessments) of their apprenticeships but who have not completed the statutory four years in employment as apprentices may be granted an exemption from this requirement by validating their competence. FÁS invites qualifying redundant apprentices to submit a portfolio of evidence of trade related work experience gained at home, abroad or in trade related training and education on the basis of which evidence exemptions may be granted. 51 applications under the scheme have been received to date in 2011. Under the EU Leonardo da Vinci Lifelong Learning Programme, 12 redundant apprentices commenced on-the-job training with employers in Germany in February 2011. Under the Fee Waiver Scheme, FÁS day and evening course fees are waived for redundant apprentices to facilitate them to enhance their employable skills. FÁS, with the support of the Department of Defence and the Irish Air Corps, is providing on-the-job training at Phases 5 and 7 for aircraft mechanic apprentices made redundant at SR Technics from 2009. All eligible redundant Aircraft Mechanics have been offered on-the-job training in the Air Corps. To date, 15 redundant apprentices have availed of this progression option. Finally, a number of new programmes for redundant apprentices and craftspersons are being developed currently by FÁS in conjunction with the Higher Education Authority and Institutes of Technology. These programmes include a post-Phase 6 Certificate in Craft Transferable Skills, a special course in Advanced Skills for Redundant Plastering Craftspersons, a Certificate

944 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers in Entrepreneurship for Redundant Craftspersons and short duration courses to prepare apprentices to repeat their outstanding assessments.

Site Acquisitions 67. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will support the case of a school (details supplied) regarding new premises. [6099/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I wish to advise the Deputy that officials in my Department have conducted technical inspections of two properties at the request of the school authorities. A preferred option has been identified and a meeting has been sought with the land owner to progress the matter further.

Departmental Schemes 68. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views regarding a village hall (details supplied) in County Meath which has applied for work under the summer works scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6127/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I can confirm that the school adjoining the village hall referred to by the Deputy has submitted an application for works under the 2011 Summer Works Scheme. Applications for funding under the scheme have been processed in my Department and I will be making an announcement in relation to the outcome of this process this afternoon. Schools authorities will be notified, in writing, of the decision on their applications in the coming days.

Site Acquisitions 69. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason he has not yet acquired a site for a proposed new school (details supplied) in County Kildare; if he will proceed to acquire the lands zoned for educational use in the Monasterevin local area plan, situated in the Moore Abbey Demesne; if this site is still his preferred location for the new school or education campus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6131/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The acquisition of a suitable site and the delivery of a new school building for the school referred to by the Deputy will be considered in the context of existing commitments and other competing demands on the Department’s capital budget. This position has been communicated by my Department to the school authority. I am not in a position at this stage to say when this acquisition will be progressed.

Physical Education Facilities 70. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills the position regarding a lease (details supplied). [6153/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): The Deputy will be aware, that the Chief State Solicitor’s Office have advised my Department that they recently forwarded a draft lease in relation to the former Greendale Community School Campus including the sports hall facility to the solicitors acting for the City of Dublin VEC. The Deputy might note that before this lease is agreed, it is intended to draw up a side agreement in relation to the activities of the club. The VEC have been requested to interact with the club on this matter.

945 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.]

The Deputy can be assured that it is not the intention of this Department to remove the club from using the sports facility or restrict the club’s access to the facility for its members. However, it is the Department’s view that any other groups currently utilising the facility or groups who may wish to avail of this asset with or without the consent of the club should be dealing directly with the VEC in relation to future on-going use of these premises.

Schools Building Projects 71. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Skills, further to Parliamen- tary Questions Nos. 105 of 29 September 2010, 80 of 9 November 2010 and 110 of 17 November 2010, the position regarding the planning application to construct two new schools in an area (details supplied) in County Cork; the expected cost of constructing the new schools; if funding is available for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6156/11]

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): As the Deputy will be aware, my Department is engaged in the process of acquiring a suitable site and to this end has applied for planning permission as part of the exchange of contracts. Following receipt of a request for further information relating to the planning application submitted, my Department has met with the planning authority and I am advised that the Department’s response to the further information request will take account of the views raised by the planners. The progression of all large scale building projects, including this project, from initial design stage through to construction phase will be considered in the context of my Department’s multi-annual School Building and Modernisation Programme. However, in light of current competing demands on the capital budget of the Department, it is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the progression of the project at this time.

EU Certification Schemes 72. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the safe pass is recognised outside of Ireland; if so, the locations where it is recognised; if his attention has been drawn to similar certificates awarded in other EU states; if these are recognised here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6157/11]

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Safe Pass is a one day safety awareness training programme for workers in the construction industry, on completion of which each worker is issued with a Safe Pass card that is valid for four years. The Safe Pass card is recognised in the U.K under an agreement on the mutual recognition of registration cards in respect of health and safety awareness training in place between FÁS and the U.K. Construction Skills Certification Scheme. FAS is not currently aware of any similar programmes in operation in other EU member states. However, in the event that a person were to present a form of safety awareness training certification issued by an authority in another EU member state, FÁS would seek to establish its comparability with Safe Pass, and engage with the relevant authority in that country with a view to developing a mutual recognition agreement, as appropriate.

Programmes for Government 73. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the major policy documents (details supplied) developed by the previous Government which will be pursued by the current Government. [5917/11]

946 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): The priority policy initiatives identified by the Government are set out in the programme, Government for National Recovery 2011-2016. Our over-riding priority is to get our economy moving, restore confidence, fix our banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. Taking account of that focus it is our intention to review the objectives of existing policy documents and to have recommendations taken forward, as appropriate, where it makes sense to do so. As regards Horizon 2020, I have already engaged with IDA Ireland and the other enterprise agencies under my Department’s remit in order to develop a jobs programme for the years ahead. Likewise, we support the overall objective of the strategy and action plan set out in Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy, which is essentially to marshal and coordinate the resources of the State in a way that best supports firms, of all sizes, in all parts of the country, which are trying to trade and grow their business overseas. We believe that its implementation will result in the sustained, concentrated and coordinated efforts of all the key Government Departments and agencies, including our embassies and consulates abroad in support for Irish companies in overseas markets and we welcome that Departments and agencies will implement the strategy and action plan from within their current budgets.

Trade Agreements 74. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the details of any trade agreements between Ireland and the Gadaffi regime in Libya and the volume of trade between Libya and Ireland; the status of same in view of the current crisis in that country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6026/11]

75. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation the details of any trade or other agreements between Ireland and the Gulf states of Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia; and if same should be suspended in view of the repression being visited by those states on pro-democracy movements and activists, and their more general denial of basic civil rights to their citizens. [6027/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): I propose to take Questions Nos. 74 and 75 together. The Deputy will be aware that under the Treaties of the European Union, the EU acts as a single entity in its trade dealings with third countries, operating a single policy, known as the Common Commercial Policy (CCP). The Commission has competence in negotiations on CCP related issues and, therefore, it conducts trade negotiations on behalf of the EU. The Com- mission is currently discussing a Free Trade Agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council, (which includes Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). These discussions are ongoing and have been for a considerable time. In relation to Libya, the Commission had been negotiating a Framework Agreement (an overarching agreement of which Trade would be one element), between the EU and that country, but these negotiations were suspended last month. Accordingly my Department does not have any trade agreements with any of the countries mentioned. Neither do we have any other agreements with them. Ireland does however participate in a number of Joint Economic Commissions (JECs) including with Libya and Saudi Arabia. JECs are formal Bilateral Intergovernmental fora, dealing with all aspects of trade development between two countries, as well as the development of economic and business cooperation and scientific and technological cooperation. Meetings of these JECs are normally held every two years and are hosted alternately in each of the two countries involved. The most recent meeting of the Ireland/Saudi Arabia JEC was held in June 2010. In the case of the Ireland/Libya JEC, the most recent meeting took place in October 2010; this was the first such

947 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Richard Bruton.] meeting with that country after a gap of almost 20 years. Both these meetings were hosted by Ireland. Trade sanctions or similar measures are sometimes advocated by concerned groups in relation to some countries, on the basis of their human rights record. Trade policy and market access issues are, as mentioned above, largely EU competencies, and restrictions on trade would have to be concerted at EU level. As a small trading nation which makes its way in the world by selling our products and services abroad, Ireland is always cautious about proposals to subordinate trade policy to political objectives. We can only consider such action in the broader context of EU or UN sanctions. Where sanctions based on political considerations are applied, they need to be carefully considered and designed to avoid causing hardship to the general population of a country. For this reason also, general trade sanctions are rarely applied. Regarding the levels of trade between Ireland and these countries, the details are shown on the tables below. The latest merchandise trade details are available for the period January- November 2010 and the latest services statistics are in respect of the year 2009. Trade between Ireland and the countries listed below:

Jan-Nov 2010 Merchandise Trade (€m)

Imports Exports

Libya 296.7 33.4 Bahrain 0.1 27.7 United Arab Emirates 107.3 257.5 Kuwait 0.5 59.8 Saudi Arabia 10.8 454.7

2009 Services Trade (€m)

Imports Exports

Libya 0 0 Bahrain 11 N/A United Arab Emirates 106 397 Kuwait 0 44 Saudi Arabia 30 162

Commercial Transaction Payments 76. Deputy Alex White asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if his attention has been drawn to the significant delays faced by many small businesses in obtaining payment for supply of goods and services to certain large and high-turnover companies and businesses; the steps he will take to address this phenomenon, which poses a serious danger to the very survival of such small businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6075/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): Payment terms in commercial transactions are determined by the parties concerned and the responsibility for the collection of those payments and general credit control rests with the selling enterprise, in the first instance. The issue of late payments in commercial transactions is addressed by the Euro- 948 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers pean Communities (Late Payment in Commercial Transactions) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 388 of 2002). In accordance with these Regulations, it is an implied term of every commercial transaction that where a purchaser does not pay for goods or services by the relevant payment date, the supplier shall be entitled to interest (“late payment interest”) on the amount outstanding. Interest shall apply until such time as payment is made by the purchaser. The current interest rate applicable is 8% per annum or 0.022% per day. This rate is set as at 1st January and 1st July each year at a rate of 7 percentage points above the European Central Bank interest rate on its most recent main re-financing operation. In the absence of any agreed payment date between the parties, late payment interest falls due after 30 days has elapsed. The 2002 Regulations also provide for compensation for debt recovery costs. Greater use of these provisions would assist in achieving earlier payments. The enforcement of contractual rights, including any rights and obligations provided for by the Regulations, is a matter for individual suppliers. The Regulations do not provide for any enforcement role for my Department in respect of these matters. The Deputy will be aware that since 2009, Central Government Departments have been improving their respective payment times, so as to assist the cash flow of businesses and are now obliged to pay their suppliers within 15 days of receipt of a valid invoice. This voluntary 15 day prompt payment period is being rolled out to the Health Service Executive, the Local Authorities, State Agencies, and all other Public Sector Bodies, (excluding Commercial Semi- State bodies), in respect of valid invoices received on or after 1 July 2011. This requirement is being introduced on foot of commitments made under the EU/IMF Programme of Support for Ireland. This initiative should have a considerable impact on cash flows of SME customers.

Grant Payments 77. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation if a company (details supplied) received any grant aid from any State employment agencies for the construction of any of its two Dublin based production facilities based in locations including the value and date of the funding offers. [6093/11]

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton): While the provision of grants by the enterprise agencies to companies is a day to day operational matter for the agencies themselves, and not one in which I have a role, I understand from Enterprise Ireland that the company in question was paid grants totalling €6,586,470 in respect of its operations at Tallaght and Grange Castle. Included in this total is a capital grant of €444,408 (paid in January 1997) in respect of plant and machinery for the Tallaght facility. Manufacturing moved to the Grange Castle plant in 2008. No grant in respect of production plant and machinery was paid in respect of this facility.

Redundancy Payments 78. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Social Protection when a redundancy payment will be approved in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford. [6081/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): On 1 January 2011, the Department assumed responsibility for making redundancy payments from the Social Insurance Fund. There are two types of redundancy payment made from the fund i.e. rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and/or in receivership/liquidation. I can confirm that

949 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] no statutory redundancy lump sum claim in respect of the individual concerned has been received by my Department.

79. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social Protection when the statutory redundancy payments will be granted to a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6160/11]

Employment Support Services 80. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Social Protection the functions of the new national employment and entitlements service; the timeframe for its implementation and the division of responsibilities among the different Departments in relation to this new body. [6054/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Programme for Government states that a new National Employment and Entitlements Service will be established under the management of the Department of Social Protection. The objective is to integrate all employment and benefit support services in a single delivery unit which will provide a ‘one stop shop’ for people wishing to establish their benefit entitlements, seeking employment and, or, advice about their training options. The focus is very much on the individual and his/her right to a payment and the corresponding responsibility to engage in employment, training or upskilling, as appropriate, which should improve a person’s life chances. It is clear that we are talking about a multi-annual programme of work which will involve development of a new service, the assignment of functions to the Service and the development of its organisation process and operational systems. A number of streams of work are already underway which will facilitate the establishment of the integrated Service. The administration of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme has already been transferred to the Department of Social Protection with the secondment of the Community Welfare Service from the Health Service Executive since the beginning of this year. The intention is to have the staff fully integrated with the Department by the end of September this year. The transfer and integration of the employment and community employment services of FÁS to the Department is also underway and it is envisaged that the integration of staff will commence later this year. A key objective of the Government in relation to the new service is that it will offer users a high level of personalised employment counselling and prioritise the provision of more inten- sive support for those on the live register who are identified as being most at risk of long-term unemployment. This will be achieved through the use of proactive approaches and modern case management systems. A number of pilot projects are already underway in relation to the development of case management, the identification of those who are most at risk of falling into long-term unemployment as well as improving information exchanges and communications between the different bodies which currently provide social welfare and employment services. These pilot projects will be completed and evaluated in the coming months after which approaches will be developed for their roll-out nationwide.

950 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Social Welfare Benefits 81. Deputy Anne Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider increasing the payment to a private bus operator (details supplied) for persons using free travel passes in view of the rising costs in fuel and the withdrawal of the subsidy on the fuel duty by the Government in 2010 and in view of the fact that Dublin Bus does not operate on the Southern Cross Road in Bray, County Wicklow; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6082/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The free travel scheme permits free travel on most CIE public transport services, Luas and a range of services offered by over 90 private operators in various parts of the country at an annual cost to the exchequer of some €74 million in 2010. As outlined in The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, funding for the free travel scheme is now frozen at 2010 levels of expenditure for the duration of the plan. In implementing this measure, my priority is to ensure that the beneficiaries of the scheme, namely the elderly and disabled, are not adversely impacted in this tighter funding situation. In the circumstances, my Department is not currently in a position to consider applications for increased payments under the scheme.

Social Welfare Code 82. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection her policy in relation to renewing extensions for permission to work or train (exemption) under the conditions of illness benefit; if she is supportive of persons obtaining this exemption where the work can be of benefit to the person; if she supports persons in these cases obtaining an initial renewal or a second renewal; if the decisions are based on current medical documentation and are these documents reviewed by a doctor in each case; the appeals mechanism that applies in respect of these exemptions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6083/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Illness Benefit is a short-term income support payment made to insured people who are unable to work due to illness or incapacity and who satisfy certain pay related social insurance (PRSI) conditions. It is a requirement of the scheme that a person must be incapable of work. However, for rehabilitative or occupational therapy purposes, customers, who have been in receipt of illness benefit for at least six months, may be granted permission to work part-time (not more than 20 hours per week) or to participate in a community employment (C.E.) scheme or FÁS training course. This permission is known as an exemption, the aim of which is to enable a person to return to the workplace on a full-time basis. Applications for exemptions are considered by one of the Department’s Medical Assessors (doctors) who considers the nature of the particular illness or incapacity, the treatment regime and prognosis. They assess the nature of the proposed employment or training and consider whether or not the proposed work or training is appropriate in light of the person’s incapacity and how, in the context of rehabilitation/occupational therapy, it would progress a return to full-time work. Approval for an exemption is granted for a specified period, depending on the circumstances of the case. If the employment or training is to continue beyond the period of the initial approval the person’s continuing suitability for an exemption is reviewed. An exemption ceases if a point is reached at which it is considered by the Medical Assessor that the rehabilitative/occupational therapy benefits of the work or training have been exhausted. The stage at which this point is reached will depend on the circumstances of the case. As the exemption process is administrative in nature decisions on new applications or further extensions of an exemption cannot be appealed to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. However,

951 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.] if a customer is dissatisfied with the decision they can request that their case be referred to the Department’s Chief Medical Advisor or Deputy Chief Medical Advisor for review. Customers are further advised that they can provide any additional medical or other documentation in support of their case.

Social Welfare Benefits 83. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an application for a carer’s allowance in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Longford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6087/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned applied for carer’s allowance on 28 January 2011. The case is currently awaiting investigation and on completion a decision will be made and the person concerned will be notified directly of the outcome.

84. Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding a supplementary welfare allowance application in respect of persons (details supplied) in County Limerick. [6097/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, an exceptional needs payment (ENP) may be made to help meet an essential, once-off cost which the applicant is unable to meet out of his/her own resources. There is no automatic entitlement to this payment. Each application is determined by the Executive based on the particular circumstances of the case. The HSE have advised that the family in question were refused assistance under the exceptional needs payments scheme on the 17th December 2010 and advised of their right to appeal.

85. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kildare has not been paid their rent supplement; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6098/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive has advised that payment of rent supplement ceased as the person concerned moved accommodation in August 2010. If the person concerned wishes to make a new application for rent supplement then she should contact the community welfare officer at her local health centre.

86. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason rent supplement has been reduced in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6101/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Health Service Executive has advised that the person concerned is in receipt of rent supplement of €350.70 which is her full entitlement based on her income from one-parent family payment and maintenance.

Social Welfare Appeals 87. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Social Protection if the appeal process will be expedited in respect of a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6122/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that an appeal by the person concerned was registered in that office on 24 January

952 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

2011. 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 22 February 2011 and the appeal will be referred to an Appeals Officer in due course, 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 Protection and of the Depart- ment and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions on social welfare entitlements.

Social Welfare Benefits 88. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason a person (details supplied) who wishes to apply for jobseeker’s allowance has been advised that they must apply for lone parent allowance, when the fact is that this person wishes to remain within the work force and is available for work; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6130/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The person concerned was paid jobseeker’s benefit with effect from 12 August 2010. During a review of her claim, she indicated that as she has a young child, she is available for part-time work only. In order to qualify for jobseeker’s benefit, a person must, in addition to a number of other qualifying conditions, be available for and actively seeking full-time work. Her claim was disallowed with effect from 06 January 2011 and she was advised that she may have an entitlement to a one parent family payment. An appeal against the disallowance of jobseeker’s benefit was made on 27 January 2011. To date, a one parent family payment application has not been made.

Social Welfare Fraud 89. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of reports of alleged social welfare fraud received by her each month since January 2010; the procedures for investigation of such reports; the number of reports of alleged fraud which were investigated; the number of claims which were found to be fraudulent by her and the number of claims which were suspended as a result; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6158/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The prevention of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day-to-day work of the Department. The Department processes in excess of 2 million claims each year and it makes payments to over one million people every week. The vast majority of people are receiving the entitlement due to them. The Department’s Control Policy aims to minimise fraud and abuse of the social welfare system. As part of this policy, Central Control Section accepts reports of possible fraud offered by members of the public in relation to the Department’s schemes. All reports are followed up and are dealt with in confidence. Reports can be made as follows and details of each are given in the table below:

• By email: www.welfare.ie

• By phone: (01) 704 3000, ask for Central Control Section or (071) 9672648 or Locall: 1890 927999.

• By Post: Central Control Division, DSP, Shannon Lodge, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim.

953 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Joan Burton.]

Reports made in 2010 2011 (Jan-Feb)

Phone 4,253 599 Email 7,384 1,437 Letter 1,011 95

Total 12,648 2,131 Note: Reports are also made directly to scheme sections and to Social Welfare Local Offices, which are not included here.

In 2010, a total of 9,758 cases of suspected fraud were sent by Central Control Section to the relevant area for examination. To end of February 2011, a total of 1,683 reports have been sent. It was not possible to pursue 2,890 of the anonymous reports received in 2010 due to insufficient information provided or where no claim was in payment. In other instances information reported would not impact on entitlement. For the first 2 months of 2011, it was not possible to follow up on 448 such reports. The number of anonymous reports received by Central Control Section from members of the public has increased in recent years as set out in the table below:

Year Anonymous Reports

2005 621 2006 579 2007 604 2008 1,044 2009 6,429 2010 12,648 End February 2011 2,131

Anonymous Reports: Received for January 2010-February 2011

Month Total

Jan 2010 846 Feb 2010 1,086 Mar 2010 796 Apr 2010 853 May 2010 816 Jun 2010 721 Jul 2010 931 Aug 2010 1,217 Sep 2010 1,377 Oct 2010 1,276 Nov 2010 1,657 Dec 2010 1,072

Total: 12,648

Jan 2011 1,021 Feb 2011 1,110

Total: 2,131

954 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

All anonymous or confidential reports are examined and where relevant, are referred to scheme owners and/or to the Department’s inspectors for follow-up action. A payment is not suspended or stopped solely on the basis of an anonymous report. The anonymous report, however, may be a “trigger” for of a review of a customer’s entitlement. A social welfare inspector may then deem it appropriate to carry out a full review of the circumstances and means of the customer in order to determine ongoing entitlement to the relevant payment. The inspector will then submit a report to the department’s deciding officer for decision regarding ongoing entitlement to the social welfare payment. Anonymous reports are not available to the deciding officers when making their decisions on cases. Their decision will be based on the full facts and circumstances of the case, including the report of the review by the inspector. Therefore, statistics on the outcome of the anonymous report was not available.

Social Welfare Code 90. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has examined the possibility of making changes to the jobseeker’s allowance payment to allow persons receiving this payment, in particular those who were previously self-employed, to sign-off temporarily to avail of very short periods of paid self-employment and sign on again when the work was concluded; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6159/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): Recipients of jobseeker’s benefit who engage in self-employment are obliged to notify my Department of each day of self-employment. Where the number of days worked in a given week of unemployment is less than four (based on a six day week excluding Sundays), the level of entitlement is reduced by one sixth of the maximum weekly rate applicable to that person for each day of employment or self- employment. In the case of jobseeker’s allowance, recipients similarly are obliged to notify my Department where they take up self-employment. Jobseeker’s allowance is a means tested payment and income from self-employment (less expenses necessarily incurred) is assessed on a yearly basis. The yearly means from such self-employment is divided by fifty two and deducted from the maximum weekly rate applicable to that person. It should be noted that the person may continue to claim jobseeker’s allowance for a full week even when self-employed provided they continue to satisfy the other conditions for receipt of jobseeker’s allowance including being available for full time employment and genuinely seeking such employment. The current arrangements in relation to the assessment of self-employment for jobseeker’s allowance are long-standing and are designed to reflect the fact that the nature of self-employment may be seasonal or sporadic and that income may vary significantly from week to week. There are no plans, at the moment, to alter the current arrangements.

Energy Security 91. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding contracts and other arrangements for oil imports to this country from Libya, in view of the crisis there and Ireland’s dependence on imported Libyan oil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5849/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The oil industry is fully privatised, liberalised and deregulated and there is free entry to the market. International Energy Agency statistics show that Ireland obtained 23.3% of its crude oil supply from Libya in 2010, representing 8.78% of overall oil imports to this country in the year in

955 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] question. The oil was sourced on the commercial market and I would emphasise that Ireland does not have a strategic dependence on oil from Libya. My Department is monitoring the evolving situation in the oil market in light of developments in North Africa and the Middle East and is maintaining contact with the Irish oil industry. Current oil industry stock levels and commercial market supply arrangements are meeting ongoing demands and there are no concerns about security of supply at this time. My Department is also maintaining close liaison with the European Commission and the International Energy Agency (IEA), of which Ireland is a founding member, on oil market developments. The IEA’s latest advice is that in the current global situation supplies remain readily available via normal market mechanisms, and the IEA is in close contact with OPEC and non-OPEC producers. In the event of a major supply disruption, the IEA has confirmed that it stands ready, as always, to make oil available to the market to take action to maintain energy security of supply. Ireland maintains its national strategic oil reserves fully in accordance with IEA and EU 90 day obligations.

Disconnection of Utilities 92. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the number of households disconnected by Airtricity in the first two months of this year. [6096/11]

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) collects and periodically issues information on the global number of disconnections by all energy supply companies based on data obtained from ESB networks and Bord Gáis networks, in relation to electricity and gas respectively. The total number of domestic disconnections completed by ESB networks on behalf of all supply companies for non-payment of electricity account was 804 in January 2011 and 753 in February 2011. I am advised that CER has recently commenced collecting disconnection data directly from electricity and gas suppliers. Publication of this data is a matter for the CER. My Department has no information on specific levels of disconnection on behalf of individual supply companies. The increase in disconnections in the past 12 months is an issue of considerable concern for the Government, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER), voluntary organisations and energy suppliers. CER works to ensure that electricity and gas disconnections because of genuine inability to pay are minimised and only occurs as a very last resort after numerous steps have been taken by a supplier to try to prevent this happening. CER issued updated guidelines for the disconnections code of practice in November 2010.

Election Management System 93. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding polling station employees (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6166/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): The primary role of my Department in electoral matters is to provide an appropriate policy and legislative framework for a modern and efficient electoral system. Within that framework, local returning officers are responsible for all matters in connection with the actual conduct of elections, including the selection, appointment and training of polling station staff in accordance with the relevant provisions of electoral law.

956 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Section 31 of the Electoral Act 1992 sets out the general duty of returning officers including ascertaining and declaring the results of an election while section 95 of the Act contains the legislative provisions relating to the appointment of presiding officers and poll clerks. Returning officers are independent in the performance of their duties. Accordingly, my Department does not have any information regarding the polling staff employed in the recent Dáil election in respect of the Dublin North East or any constituency. To assist returning officers, my Department issues guidance to them in advance of each election. The guidance emphasises that the smooth conduct of polls is dependant on maintaining a cadre of sufficiently skilled and experienced people. Having regard to that overall objective, returning officers are advised to employ competent and efficient persons as polling staff and asked to give consideration, where possible, to employing suitable persons who are unemployed.

Water Charges 94. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the process that will be used to implement the introduction of the new water taxes; the estimated cost of same nationally; if it will be on an individual metered basis; the way the installation of meters will be managed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6091/11]

95. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if there will be a waiver system in place for persons on low incomes and social welfare on the introduction of the new water tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6092/11]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I propose to take Questions Nos. 94 and 95 together. The programme for Government includes a commitment to introduce a fair funding model to deliver reliable water services. The programme also proposes the establishment of a new State-owned water utility company and the installation of water meters in individual households and introduction of water charges based on usage above a free allowance. My Department is currently developing a strategy for the procurement and installation of water meters. The Government will consider the implications of water charges for low income households in the context of providing the free allowance. I will be making further details available, including the cost of the metering programme, in due course.

Local Authority Housing 96. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment his plans to address concerns raised regarding the rights of tenants to purchase their own homes (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6113/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): Under the terms of the Incremental Purchase scheme introduced in June 2010, new houses provided by approved voluntary and co-operative housing bodies and designated under the scheme may be purchased by their tenants. As regards the sale to tenants of existing houses provided by approved bodies, my Department is currently examining, in consultation with the relevant bodies, the future funding and governance arrangements for the voluntary and co-operative housing sector. The need for any policy and legislative changes,

957 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Willie Penrose.] including changes to facilitate the sale to tenants of houses provided by approved housing bodies, will be considered in the light of the outcome of this examination.

Proposed Legislation 97. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to bring forward legislation to amend the Private Residential Tenancies Act 2004 to deal with deficiencies in the original Act which have become apparent over time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6116/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 provides the main legislative framework for the private rented sector and, in particular, for the operation of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB). My Department conducted a review of the Act in 2009 with a specific emphasis on whether the Act best supports the PRTB’s key functions and whether legislative amendments would support either the achievement of additional operational efficiencies by the PRTB in the delivery of those functions or the broader good working of the private rented sector. The outcomes of the review were announced by my predecessor as Minister of State and, in April 2010, the Government approved the preparation of the Heads of a Bill to deliver on the review’s recommendations. I am at present evaluating those recommendations and associated legislative proposals and I intend to come to an early decision as to how best to proceed in this regard.

Strategy on Homelessness 98. Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of persons accommodated in each of the past 12 months in a centre (details supplied) in Dublin 1; the reason a decision has been taken to close down the homeless centre; where the homeless users will now be housed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6133/11]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): My Department does not hold the information requested in relation to the numbers accommodated on a monthly basis at the centre in question. Statutory responsibility for addressing the accommodation needs in relation to the provision of accommodation for homeless persons rests with the housing authorities and decisions relating to particular services funded by them are matters for the relevant housing authorities in the first instance. My Department has put in place the policy, legislation and funding to underpin this role at local level. The homeless centre in question was reviewed by agreement with the Salvation Army, as part of the reconfiguration of all homeless services in Dublin. The closure of this facility was agreed as it is not fit for purpose and I understand that suitable alternative accommodation has been provided for those who were longer term residents at the centre. Homeless people who were accommodated at the centre on a nightly emergency basis, through the Dublin night bus service, will continue to be provided with alternative emergency accommodation. The homeless services reconfiguration process is essential in order to move away from an outdated emergency hostel-based approach, where people have remained for long periods, damaging their self esteem and reducing their prospects of progressing to full independent living. I am determined to tackle homelessness in a more planned and strategic way by adopting a housing first approach and providing long term solutions rather than just managing home-

958 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers lessness. This model of service delivery means a reduction in the amount of temporary accommodation and a move to suitable housing tenancies rather than meeting long term needs through homeless accommodation centres.

Stardust Disaster 99. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the progress made on the establishment of a committee to monitor the progress of the victims of the Stardust fire disaster and to ensure that counselling and medical treatment where necessary and appropriate are afforded to the survivors and the bereaved at the expense of the State as recommended by the Coffey report on the matter. [6106/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): Following the recommendation made by Mr. Paul Coffey, SC in this regard, consultation took place with the Victims Commit- tee’s legal advisor with a view to identifying the level of demand for access to ongoing counselling and medical services. As this process failed to gather sufficient information to allow arrangements to be made, and so as not to interfere in the privacy of any of the survivors or bereaved, a public information notice was placed in newspapers asking those who wished to access such services through this channel to register their interest. Arrangements to provide these services were put in place in February 2010, based on the response received. These arrangements involve a leading independent provider of counselling services and all personal details are being treated in the strictest confidence. Insofar as the monitoring of these arrangements is concerned, for the present this is being carried out by my Department in conjunction with the Department of An Taoiseach and with the expert advice of the Health Service Executive. This monitoring is restricted to the extent required to manage the provision of services.

Citizenship Applications 100. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the position regarding a passport in respect of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6055/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): A valid application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizenship Division of my Department in September 2008. The application is being processed in the normal way with a view to establishing whether the applicant meets the statutory conditions for the granting of naturalisation and will be submitted to me for decision in due course. A letter issued to the person concerned on 9 November 2010 requesting further documentation. A copy of the letter was re-issued on 23 March 2011. Processing of the application will continue when the required documentation is received. As the person concerned is not an Irish citizen, she is not entitled to an Irish passport and there is no entitlement to citizenship under the naturalisation provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. 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 administratively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Public Order Offences 101. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the

959 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] number of persons arrested and/or prosecuted for begging-related offences in 2010 and to date in 2011; and the number moved on by gardaí for begging-related offences using the new powers in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act. [6065/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2011 was enacted on 2 February. The legislation was necessary as the High Court had found that the old law, dating from 1847, was unconstitutional. I am informed by the Garda authorities that since the enactment of the Act there have been 177 arrests under its provisions. The offence of causing or procuring a child to beg is contained in section 247 of the Children Act 2001. I am informed by the Garda authorities that there were 86 arrests in 2010 and seven arrests in 2011 in relation to offences under this provision. These figures are operational and liable to change and are valid to 27 March. It is not possible to indicate the number of persons who have complied with a direction pursuant to section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, which gives the power to a member of An Garda Síochána to give directions, as there is no offence committed by a person who complies with a lawful direction to move on. Following the submission in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, it was decided that the compi- lation 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. 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 on the number of prosecutions directly to the Deputy.

Garda Recruitment 102. Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if Garda recruitment will resume for applicants who have successfully completed all stages of the application process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6084/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (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. Candidates who have been successful at stages one and two of the previous recruitment process have had their names forwarded by the Public Appointments service to the Com- missioner. These candidates will be eligible, subject to successfully undergoing the medical examination, the physical competency test and character vetting, for any future intakes into the Garda College when recruitment resumes .

Citizenship Applications 103. Deputy Gerald Nash asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the reasons for the delay in processing an application for a residence card and Irish passport in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; if it is his intention to grant residency to the person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6086/11]

960 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): An application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizenship Division of my Department in February 2011. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, provides that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation provided certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. The person concerned did not fulfil all of the statutory conditions, consequently, the Citizenship Division of my Department have deemed the application ineligible. The person in question was informed of this decision in a letter issued to him on 21 February, 2011. It is open to the person concerned to lodge a new application for a certificate of naturalisation if and when they are in a position to meet the statutory requirements. 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 administratively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Garda Deployment 104. Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the position regarding a transfer in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6088/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I am informed by management of An Garda Síochána that the transfer application to which the Deputy refers is one of a large number of similar applications for assignment to locations within County Cork. It is Garda policy that all transfer applications are kept under review and are considered within the overall context of the needs of Garda Divisions throughout the country.

Stardust Disaster 105. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will forward the report of the independent examination by a person (details supplied) submitted by the Stardust victims committee for a reopened inquiry into the stardust fire disaster, which overturned the probable arson theory of the Stardust tribunal, to the Director of Public Pros- ecutions. [6105/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I can inform that Deputy that the independent examination in question made no reference to the previous directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this regard and did not recommend that any matters be brought to his attention. Accordingly, I do no not propose to refer the report to his office.

Garda Operations 106. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will report on Garda Operation Kelso; the amount of drugs seized to date; the number of persons arrested and charged to date; the number of gardaí involved; if this operation is still ongoing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6110/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have been informed by the Garda authorities that Operation “Kelso” was undertaken by personnel from the Garda National Drugs Unit in Limerick City between August 2010 and February 2011. The operation targeted on-street drug dealing.

961 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

During the operation approximately 40 “street-deals” of drugs, principally heroin, were purchased. The operation resulted in an arrest operation in February 2011 during which 36 persons were arrested, with further arrests anticipated. The cases of persons arrested on foot of this operation for offences contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 and 1984 (possession of controlled drugs for unlawful sale or supply) are currently before the courts, awaiting law officer direction or remain under investigation at this time. Every effort is made by local Garda management in conjunction with the Garda National Drugs Unit to ensure that test-purchases under this initiative are conducted as part of routine, rostered, policing duties. An Garda Síochána is committed to tackling the supply of drugs at all levels in keeping with the National Drugs Strategy. The Garda National Drugs Unit works together with local Garda Drugs Units to ensure a co-ordinated and effective approach to protecting our communities from the harm and pain caused by drug use.

107. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will report on Garda Operation Glint; the number of persons arrested and charged to date; the number of gardaí involved to date; if the operation is still active; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6111/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): I have been informed by the Garda authorities that Operation “Glint” was brought into effect from 24 January 2011 under the direction and control of the Assistant Commissioner in the Dublin Metropolitan Region (DMR). The principal aim of the operation is to disrupt the activities of those involved in ATM fraud, particularly persons and organised groups utilising various skimming technologies at ATM machines. The operation remains ongoing. The D/Superintendent DMR South Central has overall regional responsibility for the management of this initiative. Support is provided by the District Detective Inspectors and Detec- tive Branch personnel in each of the Garda Districts in the DMR, together with liaison provided by personnel at the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation. Detective Branch Personnel are particularly tasked with preventing/detecting this type of crime, while at the same time drawing the attention of all members of the public and users of ATM machines to the deployment of skimming equipment at ATMs city wide. Every effort is being made by local Garda management to reduce this type of criminality through high visibility uniform patrols and plain-clothes surveillance and patrols which are performed as part of routine, rostered, policing duties. To date 11 persons have been arrested and charged under this operation with fraud related offences. All such persons are currently before the courts.

Asylum Applications 108. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the position regarding immigration status in respect of a person (details supplied) and if he will confirm whether he is entitled to avail of accommodation in a RIA centre. [6126/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 31 March 2006, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the

962 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against him. Representations were received on behalf of the person concerned at that time. It would appear that the person concerned left the State around that time given that, on 19 April 2006, a formal “take back” request was received in respect of him from the United Kingdom’s immigration authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regu- lations. This request was made because the person concerned was in the UK without permission at that time. This request was accepted by Ireland and the person concerned was transferred from the UK to Ireland on 8 February 2007. On 3 July 2007, the person concerned applied, in writing, to return voluntarily to his country of origin. The person concerned was requested by letter dated 9 July 2007 to attend an appointment with the Voluntary Returns Unit of my Department to make the practical arrangements for his voluntary return. However, the person concerned did not make contact with the Volun- tary Returns Unit and, as a result, his request to return voluntarily to his country of origin was closed on 7 September 2007. The person concerned clearly left the State again given that, on 19 March 2009, a further “take back” request was received from the UK immigration authorities in respect of him, again in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin II Regulations. This request was made because the person concerned was again in the UK without permission. This request was accepted by Ireland and the person concerned was transferred from the UK to Ireland on 2 October 2009. By letter dated 21 January 2010, the person concerned was notified of his entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in accordance with the provisions of the European Communi- ties (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome. In the event that the application for Subsidiary Protection is refused, the position in the State of the person concerned will then be decided by reference to the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. All representations submitted will be considered before the file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned. The Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers in accordance with the Government policy of direct provision and dispersal. The person concerned was availing of direct provision accommodation at An Poc Fada Accom- modation Centre, Cobh, Co. Cork up to 4 March, 2011, at which point he chose to leave that accommodation to stay with friends. Should the person concerned wish to return to RIA accommodation, he should apply in writing to the RIA and an offer will issue to him, at his last notified address, in due course. 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 administratively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Citizenship Applications 109. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the position regarding

963 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Jack Wall.] an application for citizenship in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6135/11]

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Alan Shatter): An application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy’s Question was received in the Citizenship Section of my Department in March 2011. On examination of the application submitted, it was determined that the application be returned in its entirety to the person concerned for further attention on 4 March, 2011. In order to be fair to all applicants, only valid applications can be considered. 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 administratively expensive Parliamentary Questions process.

Programmes for Government 110. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the major policy documents (details supplied) developed by the previous Government which will be pursued by the current Government. [5917/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): As set out in the 2011-2016 Programme for Government, the current Government fully supports the recommendations of Food Harvest 2020 and my Department is actively engaged in pursuing their implementation.

Grant Payments 111. Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be called for an arbitration hearing in respect of a 2009 single farm payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6077/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): An application under the Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme was received from the person named on the 5th May 2009. This application was selected for and was the subject of a ground eligibility and cross compliance inspection. During the course of the ground inspection, 40.17ha of the 49.83ha declared on the applicant’s application form was deemed eligible for payment. As there was an over declaration of greater than 20% no payment was made under the Single Payment Scheme/Disadvantaged Areas Scheme for the year in question. The person named was informed of these findings on the 27th October 2009 and of his right to seek a review of this decision within 21 days and of his right to appeal the outcome of any such review to the Independent Agriculture Appeals Office. At review stage it was decided by the District Inspector to uphold the penalty decision. At present the file is with the Independent Agriculture Appeals Unit who will be arranging a hearing with the person named shortly.

112. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a REP scheme payment will issue in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6128/11]

964 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 4 on 1st March 2009 and received their Year 1 payment in January 2010. An adjusted plan was received from the above named in March 2011 and this is being processed at the moment.

113. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when REP scheme payments will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6165/11]

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Simon Coveney): The person named commenced REPS 3 on 1st November 2006 and has received full payment for the first four years of the plan. Following an on-farm inspection a penalty has been applied to the year 5 payment. The person named has appealed this penalty and the file is currently being reviewed. As soon as this review is completed, my officials will be in contact with the person named.

Community Development 114. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs the position regarding funding through Pobal. [6138/11]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): Pobal (formerly ADM Ltd) was established by Government in 1992, in agreement with the European Commission, to access funding for the purpose of fostering local development, promoting social inclusion, reconciliation and equality, and countering disadvantage through local and social economic development. While originally tasked to distribute EU funding, the size, scale and range of programmes delivered by the company on behalf of the State have increased significantly in the intervening years. It currently manages a range of programmes on behalf of a number of Departments and other bodies — details are listed in a table. Pobal distributes funding approved for specific purposes to a range of community-based organisations and operators. In 2010, approximately €274m was distributed to beneficiaries through Pobal. This amount is expected to rise to €285m in 2011, an increase of 4% on the 2010 amount. Pobal provides a range of services associated with the management of these funds. These services include, inter alia:

• Administration of application and assessment processes;

• Management of contracting/re-contracting processes;

• Financial control, audit and inspections of grants paid to beneficiaries;

• Provision of advisory/support function for beneficiaries;

• Collection of performance indicators and output data; and

• Facilitation of training/networking functions/workshops.

While Pobal operates under the aegis of my Department, it is remunerated by the relevant Department/body in respect of the services it provides. Determination of the service provided — and the associated tasks and costs incurred by Pobal — are matters for the Department or body concerned. The cost of providing these services in 2010 was some €14.8m. While the level of funding for programmes managed by the company is expected to increase in 2011, the cost of administering this funding will decrease by 4% to €14.2m.

965 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Frances Fitzgerald.]

Programmes currently administered by Pobal

Department/Body Programme

Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Local and Community Development Programme Affairs RAPID Dormant Accounts Fund* Small Grants Scheme PEACE and Interreg Programmes** Equality for Women Traveller Interagency Fund European Integration Fund European Refugee Fund

Department of Social Protection Community Services Programme Rural Social Scheme Rural Transport Programme

Office for the Minister of Children National Childcare Investment Programme National Early Years Access Initiative

Department of Transport Rural Transport Programme

Department of Justice and Law Reform Community Based CCTV Scheme

National Access Office/Higher Education Authority Millennium Partnership Fund *Pobal also administers measures under the Dormant Accounts Fund for a number of Government Departments **Also delivered on behalf of the Special EU Programmes Body.

Dormant Accounts Fund 115. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs the funding available through dormant accounts and her plans for applications and distribution. [6139/11]

Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): The Dormant Accounts Acts provide for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of monies in accounts determined to be dormant into the Dormant Accounts Fund (DAF). Since its establishment in April 2003 to the end of February 2011, the transfers to the DAF have totalled some €589m, which includes interest earned of some €35m. Funds reclaimed in that period by account holders amounted to approximately €208m. Allocations from the DAF — in accordance with Part 6 of the 2005 Act — are focussed on programmes or projects to assist:

1. the personal and social development of persons who are economically or socially disadvantaged;

2. the educational development of persons who are educationally disadvantaged; or

3. persons with a disability. 966 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

The value of the DAF at the end of February 2011, net of liabilities, was some €52.5m. This figure excludes €49.4m maintained in a Reserve Account to meet future reclaims by account holders and to cover expenses associated with the operation of the DAF. The Deputy may be aware that, in the light, inter alia, of the reduced levels of funding available for disbursement from the DAF, proposals had been under consideration by the previous administration to dissolve the Dormant Accounts Board and to make appropriate arrangements for the transfer of its functions to my Department. I anticipate that this and related matters relating to future disbursements will be considered by Government in due course. Further details of projects to which funding has been allocated to date and a summary of the status of the DAF are available on my Department’s website at www.pobail.ie/en/DormantAccounts.

Hospital Services 116. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will reaffirm his commitment to co-funding the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin, Derry, and if he will proactively engage with the next Minister for Health in the Northern Executive after the impending elections to ensure that this vitally important initiative is delivered. [6281/11]

127. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children if he has discussed with the Minister for Health in the Six Counties the decision to postpone the development of the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin Hospital, Derry; if he will press for the reversal of this decision; if he has considered the implications for cancer care in this jurisdiction, particularly in the north west, if this decision goes ahead; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6125/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): I propose to take Questions Nos. 116 and 127 together. The Government is committed to ensuring a high-quality radiotherapy service for the entire population of Ireland, including close collaboration with Northern Ireland, for services in the North West. I am happy to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to this vital radiotherapy project at Altnagelvin, which will benefit cancer patients on both sides of the border, and I have written to Minister McGimpsey confirming our support, both practical and financial, in this regard. The Irish Government will work in partnership with our Northern Ireland counterparts on the development of this new facility. It is estimated that Irish patients will comprise roughly one third of the number of patients who will attend the new centre for radiotherapy services and therefore our contribution will equate to approximately one third of the full cost of the radiotherapy facilities. The proposed development at Altnagelvin is substantial in scale, with high capital costs and revenue costs, because of the highly specialist and complex nature of the services which will be provided there. I recognise that the matter is being brought forward through the usual business case process within the Northern Ireland Health Services and my Department will continue to provide all the information needed to help the planning process to continue. I look forward to continued collaboration on this and other projects of benefit to patients in both jurisdictions.

Children in Care 117. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children the number

967 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

[Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.] of children reported to have gone missing from State care in 2009 and in 2010; the number of these who went missing from foster homes, from special care units, from residential care or from other units and the number of these who are still reported missing. [6064/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Children are defined as missing if they are absent from their care placement and the foster carer or staff member does not know where they are. The time missing is not the only criterion used to determine whether a child is considered to be missing but is used in combination with other risk factors. From January 2010 to June 2010 a total of 196 children have gone missing from care as outlined below:

Residential Centres Foster Placements Other

HSE Private Voluntary HSE Private Relative Hostel Supported Aftercare Other Foster Lodgings Care

Total Number of 91 40 12 32 5 2 5 4 2 3 Children missing from care in 2010

The vast majority of children returned or were returned within a few hours or days of initially going missing. 81% returned within 24 hours, 92% were located or returned within 72 hours and 94% returned within 4 days of original report of absence. The majority of incidences of absence relate to the 14 to 17 year age group. They may have stayed with friends, or have returned to the home of a sibling or other family member. The young people in the highest risk of going missing are those who are recently received into care or into a new placement. In both situations, the young person may be unsettled, may not have yet built trusting relationships with their carer, and their carer may not be familiar with family and associates of the young person. As of the 6th August 2010 four of the children identified in the table above were still reported missing. The HSE have advised that, due to difficulties with data collection and inconsistency of information provided, the information in relation to children missing from care is not available for 2009 or the latter half of 2010. I have asked the HSE to follow up on the status of the four children mentioned in the paragraph above since 6th August 2010. The HSE has assured me that prior to the Deputy’s question, the HSE has with effect from January 2011, introduced a standardised risk assessment tool to ensure comprehensive data collection on children reported missing from care. A summary of the first six months of 2011 will be provided to HIQA in July. The HSE has also agreed a new protocol with An Garda Síochána which provides an improved set of procedures and definitions to enable effective joint action. This protocol is currently awaiting clearance from Garda authorities. As soon as all new protocols are in place information about missing children will be collected on a weekly basis. The HSE takes the case of every missing child seriously, particularly given the vulnerability of many and prompt action is always taken to locate missing children.

Health Services 118. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will ensure that an appointment is expedited in respect of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9. [6089/11] 968 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

119. Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will ensure that a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 is facilitated and if he will make an exception in this case due to the severe medical problems. [6090/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the HSE for direct reply.

120. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will support the case of a person (details supplied) regarding a long-term place. [6100/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As the Deputy’s question relates to service matters, I have arranged for the question to be referred to the Health Service Execu- tive for direct reply.

Hospitals Building Programme 121. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children his plans for developing St. Vincent’s Hospital, Athlone; the new services intended for this facility; when the primary care centre will be established in Athlone; the site at which this centre will be located; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6103/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Medical Cards 122. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Health and Children if a medical card will be granted to a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6118/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Hospital Waiting Lists 123. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Health and Children when an appointment will be arranged for a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6120/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

124. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will seek to have urgently required surgery expedited in the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6121/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter, it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply.

969 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Hospital Services 125. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will address serious concerns that the Health Service Executive may be intending to cease 24 hour emergency department cover at James Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown; if he will rule out such a change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6123/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): My Department has asked the HSE to identify any situations where there is any question of withdrawing services from individual acute hospitals in the coming months and to arrange to brief me as Minister on the circumstances and implications in each case. Pending such briefing, I have asked the Executive not to withdraw or transfer any acute services. If there is any case where the HSE considers that a change in service arrangements is required as a matter of urgency, I require the Executive to inform me of the reasons for this and the steps being taken.

Hospital Acquired Infections 126. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Health and Children the action he will take in view of the recent outbreak of the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, KPC, bug at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick; if measures will be taken to address overcrowding in our acute public hospitals, including the reopening of closed beds and wards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6124/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Health Care Associated Infections (HCAIs) continue to be a challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Ireland is not unique in this regard and tackling HCAIs is a priority for the Government and the HSE. The recent occurrence of the Carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), in the Mid-Western Regional Hospital Limerick is of concern as CRE are highly resistant to almost all antibiotics. KPC referred to by the Deputy is one type of CRE. CRE has been identified in eight patients in the Mid-Western Regional Hospital. Two other cases have been reported in a hospital in Dublin. One involves a patient who had been an inpatient in Limerick. No new cases have been detected since mid-March. To date travel to countries where CRE has been reported such as India or Greece was considered the main risk factor for their acquisition. The recent occurrence of CRE here is therefore significant. The expert guidance in the interim National SARI Guidelines, issued in January 2011 has informed the HSE’s response to the CRE occurrence. The European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has also provided international expert advice in relation to this. The prevention of CRE includes laboratory detection, enhanced surveillance, adherence to standard precautions, appropriate antimicrobial stewardship and the institution of strict patient isolation and transmission-based precautions when CRE is isolated. A range of measures have been put in place in the Mid West Regional Hospital in line with this guidance including an improved surveillance strategy for detecting CRE and the enhancement of hospital cleanliness through a programme of deep cleansing of affected areas and ensuring that hand hygiene requirements are strictly adhered to. Visiting restrictions are also in place at the hospital. Guidance has also been issued to the HSE Regional Directors of Operations for circulation to all acute hospitals and to consultant microbiologists to ensure that appropriate measures to prevent CRE are put in place. It is also planned to undertake an assessment of the prevalence of CRE in all regions. I am satisfied that significant steps are

970 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers being taken to reduce the rates of Health Care Associated Infections such as CRE and to treat them promptly when they occur. The Deputy also raises the issue of acute bed utilisation particularly bed closures. Beds in acute hospitals may be closed for a number of reasons including infection control, refurbishment or cost containment. While the management of beds at hospital level is an operational matter, access to appropriate care for patients is not simply about the number of beds in the hospital system. It is about the efficient use of resources to provide quality care and optimum outcomes for patients. Increasing the proportion of work that hospitals do on a day basis, and appropriate reductions in length of stay in the case of inpatients are important in this context. I am being briefed by my Department and the Health Service Executive (HSE) on the organisation of acute services in each region and on the important clinical programmes being developed by the HSE. These inter-related programmes aim to improve service quality, effectiveness and patient access and to ensure that patient care is provided in the service setting most appropriate to individuals’ needs. I will consider the matter of bed utilisation further in this context.

Question No. 127 answered with Question No. 116.

Health Services 128. Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Health and Children the mechanism available to a person (details supplied) in County Kildare in regard to their obtaining a necessary facility to meet their health needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6134/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

129. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding treatment abroad in respect of a person (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6144/11]

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Under the provisions of Regulation (EC) 1408/71, persons who are covered by the public healthcare system of one member state are entitled, under certain circumstances, to receive healthcare in the public system of another member state. Article 22(1)(c) of the Regulation governs the referral of patients for public health services to another member state (E112 arrangements). Under this provision, the HSE may, where certain criteria are met, authorise a person to go to another member state for treatment in the public health system there. In such cases, a Form E112 is issued by the HSE, which involves a commitment by the Executive to pay for the cost of treatment. It is a matter for the HSE to assess each application for an E112 Form and determine whether authorisation for treatment abroad should be granted. As this is a service matter it has been referred to the Health Service Executive for direct reply to the Deputy.

Health Service Staff 130. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Health and Children the position regarding orthodontic services (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6164/11]

971 Questions— 30 March 2011. Written Answers

Minister for Health and Children (Deputy James Reilly): Under the 2011-2014 Employment Control Framework for the Health Sector, orthodontic posts may be filled on exceptional grounds at the discretion of the HSE to maintain essential services and to meet priority service change or reconfiguration requirements, provided that the target reduction in numbers is being met. HSE statistics show that the number of orthodontists has increased from 38.78 whole time equivalents in March, 2009 to 40.55 whole time equivalents at the end of February, 2011. This represents an increase of 4.56%.

972